Axiom Home Page
Posted By: ringmir OT: politics - 07/15/04 06:57 PM
Republicans are a$$e$. Democrats are sissies. Green party members should smoke less of the green stuff.

There, go to town boys.
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:01 PM
Ok so here's a question for everyone, clearly fox and cnn are not the best place to get news, at least not as your only source. Where do people get news? I read cnn online pretty frequently, I also read the bbc online and the local papers.
Posted By: BBIBH Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:07 PM
You have several valid points.

Has anyone noticed how the center channel dialogue on Fox is about -3db less than CNN? I also find a blurring of details from the surrounds during the ending musical piece (Mozart??) when played via my Axioms, connected to the Moon Attraction pre/pro.

...sorry...could not resist the thread-jacking!!!
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:09 PM
please feel free to thread jack over here all you want.
I don't plan on reading this thread too intently. That's why I started it, so I could easily tell what to avoid.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:10 PM
I get a lot of my news from http://www.metafilter.com. It's a weblog where members post links to articles and then discuss them. There are plenty of people on both sides of the issues, and the discussions are usually civil and informative.

I also listen to NPR.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:12 PM
the onion is 100% true.. NOT.. but funny, check it out..

i actually get most of my news from the newspaper.. seems old fashioned, but the AP is not as influenced by advertising. CNBC is ok, cnn is bad, fox is worse, and the networks just wanna show what will SHOCK you and keep you watching.

bigjohn
Posted By: Ken.C Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:14 PM
I get virtually all of my news from NPR (yes, I know there is a slant, but it's more complete news than you'll get off the TV or from the AM newsradio stations). There. Call me a biased liberal.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:19 PM
I get my news from multiple sources (local paper mainly, tv news, web sources, etc...) and then read between the lines on all of them.
TV news is particularly good (providing they don't cut things up) for providing briefings, press conferences, etc... all great primary sources.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:30 PM
Mostly BBC online now. I still frequent cnn.com sometimes though. In print, I read TIME.

NPR isn't as slanted as most people say. I think it's pretty even. It's just that most of the major media outlets are leaning so far to one side that it makes the middle ground seem slanted.




Posted By: James_T Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:35 PM
I am a biased liberal too! Of course I live in San Francisco, so that is not really a surprise is it?
Though I claim to make an effort to read between the lines and have some leanings towards libertarianism in the sense of personal responsibility. It works in my head even if they seem to contradict each other on paper!
I mostly get my news from NPR in the morning and the web the rest of the day. I have tried to listen to more of the talk shows (liberal and conservative), but so often it's just shouting and yelling and no real discussion going on. If I want to watch men and women act like 8 yr olds I'll become a schoolteacher. I rarely finish listening and think I have learned something new.

jr

Posted By: md55 Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:51 PM
I have my home page set at Google news. Usually multiple sources for each storyline. If something interests me further I will search the topic. I like to get different points of view from around the world. Its funny these days where stories come from. I wanted to see a what happened in the Masters golf tournament a while back and the New Delhi Times was the only one carrying it. Aljazeera and the Jeruselem Post, BBC World, Reuters, all good for differnt takes.

Ever have the opportunity to read newspaper stories about something you have first hand knowledge of? Generally not all that accurate at daily reporting in my experience.
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 07:59 PM
I'm another Google news fan. I keep an icon on my desktop which takes me right there. I do watch TV network news, read the morning newspaper, and read TIME. I don't believe there is any "unbiased" reporting, so I do my best to gather the facts from as many different sources as possible, and sorta figure things out for myself as much as I can.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 09:27 PM
In reply to:

I do my best to gather the facts from as many different sources as possible, and sorta figure things out for myself as much as I can.


If only the average citizen did as much.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 09:35 PM
Hey, how come this dedicated politics thread is so civil?

Here's something to start a fire:

July 14, 2004 -- Commentator Connie Rice shares another one of her ever-popular top-10 lists: "Top 10 Weapons of Mass Distraction."

Number 10: Corporate Show Trials

Watching Martha, Ken and the Fastows doing the perp walk is a great diversion from the real crime. These show trials divert our focus to a few criminal acts from what's really wrong -- rules written by corporate lobbyists that legalized corporate tax evasion, corporate welfare, corporate pollution and looting.

Number 9: Donald Trump's TV Show The Apprentice

It's got us focused on Trump as this financial wizard and corporate titan -- someone people would kill off their competition to work for. In real life, his casinos are on the verge of bankruptcy and receivership.

Number 8: Bush's Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

You'd think that marriage were somehow in imminent danger from gay infidels. But this is nothing more than a cynical wedge issue to increase the voter turnout of Christian evangelicals and cover broad failures of the Bush administration -- three million jobs lost, the biggest deficits in U.S. history, a failed war in Iraq and Osama bin Laden stronger than ever. GOP operatives manufacture a fake constitutional crisis over imaginary gay insurgents, and they aim for the brain stem so that we won't think about the bigger failures.

Number 7: Tom Ridge's Terror Alerts

No one knows what they mean. The last one warning that Bin Laden intends to attack this summer made no sense -- except to disrupt the Kerry-Edwards rollout. They are now rolling out plans for postponing the November election if an attack occurs.

Number 6: Rush Limbaugh

He's a masterful circus barker so skilled that he can seduce millions into surrendering their privacy rights under the USA Patriot Act. At the same time, he and the ACLU fight to keep his own medical records from a criminal drug investigation.

Number 5: Tax Cuts

The Bush administration has average Americans believing they are overtaxed and will benefit from cuts -- cuts that go overwhelmingly to folk richer than them, and result in cuts in services that they need but the rich don't.

Number 4: Ralph Nader

The only issue discussed is his "spoiler" role, the only people funding his candidacy are pro-Bush Republicans and the only outcome of his run is that the people he claims to care about -- the poor and the dispossessed -- will be devastated if Bush gets four more years to practice his "compassion."

Number 3: The Cult of Celebrity and Entertainment

We're laughing and entertaining ourselves to death. While our kids watch eight hours of TV a day, and more adults vote for the next American Idol than do for the next president, our democracy is being looted by superpower corporations and other high-octane interests.

Number 2: The Invasion of Iraq

There clearly was no reason to invade, other than to hide the fact bin Laden still hasn't been captured, and likely to remain so -- and the fact that Bush needed to kick any Arab butt he could to show that America hits back. Hussein's butt was the only one he could safely kick, so he did. Meanwhile, the war against al Qaeda flounders while the United States diverts its resources to the Iraq quagmire.

Number 1: The Republican Convention Lineup

They're going to dig up the few moderates (including Guiliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain and Romney) and black people they know and put them on TV, along with a whole bunch of black and Latino musical acts, to hide the real face of the GOP and its reactionary platform. The last convention looked like Saturday night at the Apollo -- there were more black people on stage than in the entire convention.

taken from npr.org
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 09:48 PM
HERE!! HERE!!

now thats some good political humor..

oh wait, was it meant to be a joke?? i know a lot of republicans that hope so.. else-wise, they been dupped!!

bigjohn
Posted By: mwc Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 09:59 PM
If getting your news from NPR means you're a biased liberal then call me one too. At least when there is a commentary slant on NPR it's out in the open.

If you want to see an extreme example of media slant, check out the psudo-news on Pat Robertson's 700 Club just for grins. It is a hoot.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 10:10 PM
Hmmm, did I say start a fire? Well, here's something that will start a firestorm if it's true (I really, really, really hope none of it is true):

Seymour Hersch has seen taped video footage of US soldiers sodomizing Iraqi children

The commentary on the linked page is good and some of it points to corroborating evidence. You can also see his speech about 1h:30m into the video clip.

Personally, I am speechless and can only hope this didn't happen.
Posted By: James_T Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 10:23 PM
I saw that link on Metafilter and nearly crapped myself. I pray to god/allah/buddha/cows/trees that it's not true. I seriously nearly shed a tear just considering the idea.

jr
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/15/04 11:28 PM
I should use a picture of Steven when he's sad and alternate my avatar depending on the tone of the post.... That one needs a very sad Steven.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/16/04 03:44 AM
RE:

In reply to:


July 14, 2004 -- Commentator Connie Rice shares another one of her ever-popular top-10 lists: "Top 10 Weapons of Mass Distraction."

...




All I can say to all of that is:

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.



Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/16/04 03:52 AM
oh ya... I try to listen to NPR but honestly, I usually only catch it when they have some COMPLETELY boring and uninspiring show on about nothing.

I definitely lean right, however I don't like to consider myself Republican, actually I don't like any party out there. I do enjoy most AM radio from Hanity to O'Reily to Alan Colms, but Glenn Beck is my favorite. That said I rarely 100% agree with any of them, but that would be impossible to do anyway.

And I've heard/read plenty of things that make me believe that the Kerry would be the worst thing to ever happen to our country. Al Gore is now proving WHY he did not deserve to be our President as well. We dodged the perverbial bullet there! The second thing that crossed my mind on 911 was how lucky we were that Gore did not win that election!

And it's sad to see that many ppl don't understand how important it is to not only our country but stability in the middle east in general that we took out Saddam. The reason 911 happened was that we did nothing until it was too late.
Posted By: Hawkson101 Re: OT: politics - 07/16/04 08:39 PM
I read yahoo news which is basically AP, reuters and some newspaper articles.

I absolutely hate fox and about every other show on CNN. MSNBC is IMO as even as it gets. Fox really isn't a news station because it is all opinion. CNN offers news but sometimes it does exactly what Fox does-offers opinions and not news.

I dislike Bill O'reily and his style immensly.


When did reporting the news mean having two opposing views talking about one issue? Thats not news because no one learns anything.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/16/04 09:20 PM
Bush didn't to anything productive to avenge us or make us safer after 9/11. Sure he went into Afghanistan and found a couple al Qaeda members. If he really wanted to avenge us or make us safer, why did he send so few troops there to search for bin Laden, who is still at large?

But he then shifted gears completely to focus on Iraq and Saddam -- who didn't even have the power or the means to bother surrounding countries, let alone us.

Another point that bother me to no end is people saying Gore would have done worse. The fact is, we DON'T KNOW that. It's all speculation. I cetrainly don't think he was prime presidential material, but I have a feeling his actions and motivations wouldn't have had big business, money, and greed written all over them.

Face it, war is good business for a lot of people with friends in high places.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/16/04 10:38 PM
pmb, I think that is a seriously flawed view of US foreign policy. Even when used to interpret US motivations in Vietnam, it doesn't hold water.

To assert that Bush's motivations, post 9-11 - after an attack on US soil that killed more Americans than the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor - have been based on a desire to enrich corporate America, is absurd. Conservatives are often accused of being simple-minded, but to view the actions of Bush's administration through the "corporate greed paradigm", forsaking all other evidence, is the epitome of simple-mindedness.

Bush's career will be over in 1-5 years. His only motivation, other than doing what he thinks is best for America, is likely, "What will my legacy be in the annals of American history?"

Take a step back, consider the BS those hippies have been feeding y'all up there, and think things through. We have enemies that mean us harm, have done us harm. At what point is it OK to fight back? Afghanistan was a resounding success, but the hippies railed against that action, as well.

And Iraq is neither a quagmire nor a disaster, no matter how many times media members declare it to be so. The military kicked some serious booty, in a hurry, and did so with too few soldiers.

The enemy that remains, since the close of open hostilities has generally coordinated one attack a day. Why? So that our idiot left-leaning media has something to report, some fire and blood and carnage to plaster on everybody's TVs each night.

I'm voting Bush, but even if Kerry wins, the mission to protect America from future attacks will continue. Everybody who has watched developments in the Middle East for the last 30 years, knows that to do nothing will be certain disaster for us.

And Osama's likely to be found in Pakistan, protected by anti-American fanatics. That the gov't of Pakistan is so unstable as to be unwilling to capture him (yet tenuously possesses atomic weapons) is more than a little disconcerting. Iran is continuing with their nuclear weapons program. It ain't a pretty picture that's shaping up.

I'm afraid that in some years from now the 900 brave souls we've lost in Iraq will seem very few compared to the number lost to acts of terrorism here in our own country. If Osama (or any of those other nuts) had a nuke would he have used it? Of course. What plan do you feel be best for preventing terrorists from obtaining WMD or from using them against us? I think that some of the folks in your neck of the woods WANT us to get attacked (including my unabashedly communist sister in the Redwood Empire ), want int'l trade to stop, want the domestic economy to stop, and have all of us go back to hunting, gathering and using seashells for currency.

I forgot one other source of info - the men and women who come home from Iraq. What are they saying about our efforts in Iraq? Don't hear many of their comments on the news, do you?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/16/04 11:01 PM
I'm glad we finally have a thread for this as I don't have to feel guilty for ranting.

BigWill, you took my hastily added closing statement and disregarded the rest of my argument. Sure, I know Bush has more than just money in mind. After all, he's a citizen too and doesn't want the country to be attacked any more than you or I do. Nobody really wants to go back to hunting, gathering, and seashells.

But why is it that his policies and tax cuts result in the tossing of nickles at the feet of us middle class folk while the top 1% get billions and billions? I am a firm believer in the "everyone does better when EVERYONE does better" idea as being a guiding principle of government. That includes healthcare, jobs, a better-regulated welfare system, not bombing foreign countries and killing innocent civilians, working with the international community on issues of international concern, etc.

The best way to enjoy safety is not to give people reasons to hate us. I guarantee you the foreign policy of this country, as of late, has gotten us more enemies than admirers. We are not safer; our enemies are just harder to count.


Oh, and for someone leaning far to the right, the middle -- relatively speaking -- looks like it's left-leaning. The same can be spoken of left-leaners, of course. Don't be so quick to toss people into one bin or the other.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/16/04 11:03 PM

Posted By: James_T Re: OT: politics - 07/16/04 11:15 PM
You have now reached ueberaffentittengeil status Peter!

Haha.

jr
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 07/16/04 11:58 PM
ya know, I feel like I contributed something useful to the board for once....heh

and of all things it's a thread that I will pretty much ignore!
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/17/04 03:43 AM
Unfortunately, I hurt my back a couple of days ago while working in the yard and I'm having a hard time sitting in this chair - so I must be brief.

It seems like the biggest issues down here in soCal are race and class. Minorities are always finding white racism to be at the core of all conlicts, while the poor white folks are always finding economic disparity to be the source of society's ills.

A while back one of our Canadian friends pointed out that Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily from John Locke and others in writing the Declaration of Independence. Where Jefferson wrote, "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Locke had, "...life, liberty and property." The United States is a capitalist country and has a representative, democratically elected gov't.

If 90% of the people agree to take the wealth of the other 10%, that is not democracy. That is stealing - mob rule. If you don't like being poor (I've accepted it ) then invest in yourself and do something about it. Bill Cosby's recent rant should have been delivered to all of us not just the black community.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/17/04 05:31 AM
I can't agree with you more BigWill...

but...

In reply to:


But why is it that his policies and tax cuts result in the tossing of nickles at the feet of us middle class folk while the top 1% get billions and billions?




A) I'm extremely middle class, I felt that I got a decent amount of money back from the gov. Want to know why the economy is recovering? Even if the middle class only got a few hundred dollars back, can you think of any of them that put it into savings? Hell no! We all went out and spent that extra money on something, which in turn fed the economy. Couple that with low interest rates and its pure genius (Reganonmics > all).

B) Ever stop to think that when the so called *rich* ppl seem to get back more perhaps its because they are taxed for more to begin with?

We need a damn FLAT tax in this country. Just because someone makes 6+ figures doesn't mean they deserve to be taxed at a higher rate. Furthermore, if you want to whine about how the *rich* tax evade behind deductions and such, well a flat tax would end all of that.

If you want socialistic polices please by all means move. There are plenty of other countrys out there for you. I for one would like to see this one remain based on capitalism. Every able bodied citizan needs to take care of their own damn self! NO HANDOUTS!

To be fair, I believe in smaller gov and thats one thing Bush hasn't been able to acomplish. He is by no means perfect, but he's the best we got right now, and overall I think he's done a pretty good job.

Posted By: Ken.C Re: OT: politics - 07/17/04 05:53 AM
I put it into savings.

And it's my damn country too. I'm staying.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/17/04 07:14 AM
My money went to savings, too. I want to retire comfortably, send my kids to college, etc. I can put off having all the crap I want until later -- or indefinitely. Stuff is nice, but stuff is just things.

BigWill, I don't hink of myself as poor. It's not the fact that rich people have money that get to me. As a matter of fact, I don't care a whole lot about most rich people. It's the super-uber-filthy rich that I worry about, because they use their wealth to influence. They play by different rules than you and I. And it's this great country that enabled them to amass their great wealth, but they want to give back as little as possible. (I realize they pay a ton more in taxes than you and I, but we're talking percentages here, not totals.)

I have nothing against capitalism as long as it's responsible and forward-looking.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/17/04 07:17 AM
In reply to:

ueberaffentittengeil


I'm definitely not "super ape tit horny"

Those Germans sure have a way with words. (Yes, I know it's supposed to mean super-cool, but the literal translation is just wacky.)
Posted By: bray Re: OT: politics - 07/17/04 04:01 PM
I spent mine on Axiom Loudspeakers.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/17/04 08:40 PM
I bought a 36" TV.

I can't understand why CEOs are paid so much money, but... whatever. Hopefully they'll spend it and invest it here.

The super-rich understand that a large and stable middle class is in their best interests. I was told in college that most of the super rich are actually liberals, but I don't know that to be fact. While it seems odd for the rich to be liberals, there are reasons for it to be so.

The capitalist system that developed during the Industrial Revolution was ugly. Marx, observing that, estimated that people would not stand for such conditions for long. If the sweatshop work conditions and rigid class structures hadn't changed during the last century, we would probably all be comrades right now.

Of course, it was the development of the middle class that Marx did not foresee, and which has extended the longevity of the capitalist system. So long as we are all fat and happy, few will call for drastic change.

Concentrating wealth in the hands of a very few, while the masses are impoverished, would result in a very unstable, and unprofitable, situation for the super-rich. The producers need a market in which to sell their goods. We need to have money to buy those goods and they know that.

Marx argued that the worker must always be alienated from the product of his labor; that is, he won't be able to afford the stuff he makes because the owner will always get his profit (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer). Two thing that prevent this from happening: an "ever-expanding pie" so that we can all get a larger and larger piece (rich get richer and poor get richer, too), and employee discounts.

Whenever politicians pander to the crowd with talk about increasing taxes on the wealthy, putting up protectionist barriers, raising the minimum wage, expanding gov't regulation/bureaucracy, etc..., I immediately question their motivations. Just trying to get elected? (that's it most of the time). Stupid? (hardly ever the case). Possible non-believer in the principles upon which this country is based, IOW - a communist? (sometimes!).

IMO, Clinton, Kerry and Edwards all fall into that first category. That Kucinch (sp?) guy falls into the last category.

This is fun. Don't get mad.
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 07/17/04 09:22 PM
Are you talking about little Dennis? He is my congressman. Actually, though well meaning, I think he falls into the 2nd category.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/17/04 11:41 PM
Elect Trafficant!
Posted By: Hawkson101 Re: OT: politics - 07/18/04 12:11 AM
In reply to:


We need a damn FLAT tax in this country. Just because someone makes 6+ figures doesn't mean they deserve to be taxed at a higher rate. Furthermore, if you want to whine about how the *rich* tax evade behind deductions and such, well a flat tax would end all of that.




People who make excessive incomes do so at the expense of others. CEO's work just as hard as middle management and your average cubicle worker. This is part of capitalism and is 100% acceptable. But, these people are also part of a community and are members of a democracy and they should give back to the community from which they take so much from.


On that note, it is my belief that taxes are too high for everyone. The less money the goverment has the less opportunity they have to waste it. E.G. Going to mars and going to war(needlessly) is preventable by giving the government less money.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/19/04 03:54 AM
I want less gov... but I also want (demand!) a man'd mission to Mars.



Posted By: player8 Re: OT: politics - 07/19/04 06:25 AM
Will,

I swear I was sitting in my Economics class while reading your post. I'm not sure whether thats a good or bad thing...

My econ Professor wrote a book and he pretty much quotes Marx for his ethos appeal. What you said is exactly what I heard in class three times a week. I do think that your right though.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/19/04 01:36 PM
In reply to:

I want less gov... but I also want (demand!) a man'd mission to Mars




inane- i sure hope that was a joke?? i still dont understand why this is SUCH a big deal?? why are we spending billions and billions of dollars to try and send spacecraft to photograph mars?? research, science, knowledge?? meanwhile, we got plenty of people dying right here on earth from diseases and plagues.. and we got plenty of people that cant walk from MD, and other possibly preventable defects. but somehow it makes more sense to keep wasting money to find a microscopic organism imbedded 6 inches in a chunk of mars rock??

i hope someone, someday, can make this extreme waste of time and money make sense?

bigjohn
Posted By: Radspecv Re: OT: politics - 07/19/04 02:39 PM
I have to agree. I've always wondered what they were hoping to gain from all this space exploration. It would seem more beneficial to spend the money to fix the Earth first.

Pete
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 07/19/04 03:01 PM
I tend to agree with the whole space exploration thing, although I know there are other places this money could go. (IE: deep ocean exploration...) The thing is, that as a species we will outgrow this planet. (Unless we kill each other off first of course) Now I'm not saying we should start doing serious terraforming research or anything like that, but in all seriousness, earth is an infintessimal speck on the face of the universe. I think it's important to see what is out there, and to know we can get there. Who knows if some discovery of extreme value lies under 6 inches of martian soil? Science is driven forward by dreamers, not by necessity. Robotics will have a significant place in the not too distant future whether we like it or not. Building robots to navigate an alien landscape and succeed in specific missions is an excellent way of evolving our robotics capabilities. Aerospace technology needs new technological challenges in order to push forward. For the sake of military security in a changing world we need to continue to evolve our space capabilities and stay ahead of potentially hostile countries. If one nuclear bomb were detonated at orbital elevations, the EMP would shut down thousands of satellites. It's not a waste of money at all...granted, there are other places the money could go, but there's also more money that can go there. Look at the war chest, and compare it to NASA's budget. I'm going to spot ranting now....but seriously, this is good stuff that will ultimately benefit mankind, there is just no way to predict how or where.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/19/04 05:44 PM
Why not spend billions on exploring near space? We waste that kind of money on all kinds of crap that has zero possibility for return.

Just to stir the pot , why is that we give money to people for not working? Why not make employment a condition for welfare/unemployment money?

It seems to me that they're encouraging people to remain unemployed by paying them for not working. A minimum wage job might look better if you had a nice little gov't check to go along with it. And, hopefully, those minimum wage jobs would snowball into bigger and better things for many people who otherwise would have been at home on the couch watching Jerry Springer, waiting for the next gov't check to come in.
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 07/19/04 06:16 PM
The problem with space is exactly that. Space. Near space is "empty". Exploring a vacuum just isn't terribly interesting. And the debris out there is studied quite extensively. A few floors away from me in this building they maintain a database of observations and tracking information on thousands of satellites, rocks, and just plain space trash. When they were planning the space station they called over here to find out what area would be the best to build it in order to minimize potential space debris collisions.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/19/04 10:53 PM
I can't say that I know much about space, but I thought it was amusing when Clinton said, "...we have conquered space...," in a State of the Union address. Like our tiny forays outside earth's atmosphere are of any significance compared to the vastness of the universe.

I was discussing space and time travel once with a very intelligent student. He asked my opinion about all of it - I told him I didn't think it was possible (to travel through time or to distant solar systems) and explained why. He asked what college I had graduated from - I told him, but asked why he wanted to know. "So I know not to go there," he replied and walked away. It truly was hilarious.

I've always thought that "warp speed" would be awfully difficult to do. What about all the debris scattered in front of the path of the ship? How do you chart a course of that distance without encountering any rocks?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/19/04 11:35 PM
BigWill, when you travel at warp speed (hypothetically, of course), you're taking a non-liner shortcut between point A and B.

Imagine space as a sheet of copier paper. Point A is near one edge, and point B is near the opposite edge. Using conventional travel, the shortest distance between the two points is a straight line. Using warp travel, you can bend space, bringing point A and B closer together. To use star trek terms, the "warp factor" is the degree to which space is bent. The more you bend it, the close the destination becomes.

That being said, my jury is still out as to whether faster than light travel (which, technically speaking, is time travel) is possible. It cannot be attained conventionally (i.e. just firing you thrusters until you eventually reach light speed), but it may be possible using other means, such as black holes or worm holes. There are some exiting new discoveries that suggest black holes are not as destructive as previously believed.

Being a complete geek and former nerd, I can't say I want all money that's currently going toward space research to be diverted toward earthly endeavors, but I do think the majority of our expenditures as a nation should go toward terrestrial issues.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 12:24 AM
I understand what makes you a complete geek, but what qualifies you as a "former" nerd?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 12:57 AM
I'd rather not say.

LOL, I don't know why I said that. Maybe it should be former geek instead. I'm not scrawny, I like sunlight, and I don't eat much junk food. James_R might say that disqualifies me.
Posted By: James_T Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 01:22 AM
Hehe. Since you live in the Bay Area allowances must be made. You can retain geek status and not be pasty white or eat nothing but junk food. However, if you do not consume caffeine then you are out! Out I say! Out!

jr
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 02:02 AM
Einstein has been explained to me before, but I still don't get the time/space connection, or why travelling at or near the speed of light would affect the passage of time. Please don't try again.

Wormholes have also been explained to me, but there is no evidence to suggest that they exist right? Atheist mythology?
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 02:07 AM
I am a geek, NOT a nerd... just want to be clear on that.

In reply to:


inane- i sure hope that was a joke?? i still dont understand why this is SUCH a big deal?? why are we spending billions and billions of dollars to try and send spacecraft to photograph mars?? research, science, knowledge?? meanwhile, we got plenty of people dying right here on earth from diseases and plagues.. and we got plenty of people that cant walk from MD, and other possibly preventable defects. but somehow it makes more sense to keep wasting money to find a microscopic organism imbedded 6 inches in a chunk of mars rock??

i hope someone, someday, can make this extreme waste of time and money make sense?




It's pretty simple actually. Yes a small part of the reason to do this is one day earth will be even more overcrowded than it is today. But the far bigger reason for exploring is this:

Name all the different ways mankind has been able to gain substantial new technology from. Done? I'm willing to bet nothing on that list can compare to two things, war and exploration.

True we really haven't spent much time exploring the oceans but we are about done with the land on this planet. So many things you use each day come from one of those two things. Personally I'd rather see us put more effort into space than war to get the results we need. And please don't go say we don't need more technology. Just think back 10 years ago before the internet got huge. Common ppl are now not only able to exchange ideas with fellow countrymen, we do so with ppl across the seas.

Mankind is driven by one thing, to learn. If you're not moving forward, you are likely moving backwards.

Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 02:18 AM
In reply to:

...Wormholes have also been explained to me, but there is no evidence to suggest that they exist right?...


Yes there is. I have an apple, right here, that proves it.
Posted By: Hawkson101 Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 03:56 AM
we(The U.S. and the planet) will achieve useful benefits from space when we have solved our problems on earth. But before then, nothing we learn or gain from space will affect our daily lives. It is perposterous to think that conquering mars is possible when corporations with monetary aims in mind are in control of these projects.

When the significance of money, and therefore wealth decreases, mankind will advance as a society. When healthcare, food, shelter, education and moderate individual accesories are afforded to everyone we, as a race and a country, can start to move towards something bigger then planet earth. Granted, the situation I described is almost utopia like, but it is achievable. With robots and computers ready to take on 80% of the jobs humans do, there will be more free time for us to devote towards individual free time, bettering ourselves and bettering others.

Once that is acheived we can start thinking about mars and other noble ideas.

First lets worry about oil, electric cars and AIDs.
Posted By: Ken.C Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 03:58 AM
Just to stir the pot a bit, I'll point out that many of the technological advances that we have had in the last 50 years or so have come from the space industry (for lack of a better term). That said, I don't think now is the right time to go to Mars, especially at the expense of other projects, such as the Hubble and the weather satellite that NASA recently decomissioned. Also, if you're going to make a proclamation like this, make sure it gets funded properly...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 04:06 PM
"When the significance of money, and therefore wealth decreases, mankind will advance as a society. When healthcare, food, shelter, education and moderate individual accesories are afforded to everyone we, as a race and a country, can start to move towards something bigger then planet earth. Granted, the situation I described is almost utopia like, but it is achievable. With robots and computers ready to take on 80% of the jobs humans do, there will be more free time for us to devote towards individual free time, bettering ourselves and bettering others."

I would have to disagrre with just about everything in the above statement. Money, wealth, capitalism, etc... is the engine that has advanced human civilization to the point we are today.

For example, there is no question that health care in the developed countries is better today than it was 10 years ago or 20 or 100. Why? Because medical research - largely funded by companies looking to make a profit with the latest, greatest life saving drug/machine - has benefited from the incentive capitalism provides.

If the time comes when humans no longer have to work and can just spend their time pondering the angst of their existence, we will be in trouble. It is healthy, nay ESSENTIAL, to strive, to struggle, to want, to achieve. The "free-time utopia" you envision would probably be a very depressing, listless, direction-less place.

I agree though that our oil addiction needs to be addressed now!
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 04:39 PM
i am going to change the subject.. i still think the space exploration thing is a big waste of money, but, to each their own..

my interest now, is in how the republican party is gonna handle the soon to be released findings of the 9/11 commission. they are obviously gonna conclude that the reports findings are wrong, and that they are based on ineffective research and intelligence that has been proven unreliable. which is gonna be kinda funny, cause it was that same research and intelligence that got them all fired up to attack iraq in the first place..? so , two wrongs make a right?? we will see..

there will be some interesting tip-toeing going on over this report.. but it will be fun to watch both parties try and use it to their advantage.

bigjohn
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 05:33 PM
I was a little bored at work, so I decided to vent:

I get most of my news from CNN, FOX, CNN Online, Drudge, & AM Radio…at least try to get a blend. I have tried NPR, but the program I always find in the morning is some monotone ramblings about relatively unimportant topics. I may be just hitting them at the wrong time, but I can’t appreciate the format…makes me want to sleep instead of think. Truthfully, I listen to Neil Boortz frequently, whose Libertarian views resonate closely with my own.

Growing up, I was what many would call a bleeding-heart liberal. After recent conversations with each of my parents, it’s easy to understand why. Both my Mom and my Dad are very much to the left, but for different reasons. My Dad is the eternal victim that believes the dark empire (rich) is out to completely screw the rest of us. My Mom is more aligned on the side of the basic sense of entitlement that is rampant in our country.

As you can tell by my dialog, I have changed my views a bit over the years. Growing up in that environment (home & New England), those Democratic punch lines were passionately drilled into my head. I, in turn, would blindly spew the rhetoric to everyone that would listen. The problem that I would encounter is the fact that some of my conservative buddies would continually take me to the cleaners when we engaged in political discussions. I found myself doing what I now find to be a frustrating element of liberalism (some, not all). Whenever I tried to argue a given point, I would argue using heaping amounts of passion and little more than sound-bytes. I quickly realized that the key to making an effective argument is having the necessary facts to support your position…something I later would try to instill in my Geometry students when discussion the idea of proof.

Many years later, I have done enough reading and listening to better understand the world and all of its complexities. Idealism has given way to realism. I’ve peeled back the onion enough to see that my original premises were without substance, driven more by compassionate idealism and not by a true understanding of the political and economic system in which we live.

Now that you know my life’s history, I’ll get to the good stuff:

1. I think that space exploration must continue. I don’t know enough about the funding structure, but I would like to see more private sector support. As many have said, innovation and advancement arises from exploration (and war). Also, as a species, we need to stop thinking of ourselves as the center of the universe.

2. I am mixed about the war with Iraq. I did not care for Bush’s timing and his methodology. I believe that the Iraq needed to be addressed, but I think that it could have been handled differently. I would have rathered we had better UN support, but not in the way that most advocate. Based upon what we know about the motives of the major UN powers, in relation to Iraq, it is obvious that we were not going to easily obtain their support for our actions. However, I think that Bush missed an opportunity to call the UN out and force their hand. Instead of taking NO for an answer and going it alone, he should have forced their hands based upon the fact that they must follow through with their own resolutions if they are to maintain any credibility in the world community. Since we are the biggest financial contributor to the UN, I think that we could have pounded on them a bit harder than we did. Then, when the evidence of their interactions with Iraq came to light, we would be in a better position to perhaps demand reform in the UN structure.

3. I think that we are indeed in the middle of world war with us on one side and radical Islam on the other. This is not a war of religion for us; it’s a war for survival. I think that we have forgotten the horror of 9/11, which is understandable, to an extent. We are so wrapped up in our own little worlds to pay attention to the bigger picture…However, the terrorists are still out there planning ways to kill YOU. No matter what we do, they want us dead. 9/11 was a wake-up call, but it didn’t last long enough. We’ve settled right back into our normal day-to-day life and lost sight of the underlying fact that the adversary in this situation does not forget, does not get back to normal life, does not have a change of heart. He wants us dead no matter what. The next time we hear from them on American soil, it might be when they vaporize 10 million people with a nuclear device. That day is coming…mark my words. This fact alone should keep you up at night. So, when you are standing at that ballot box, keep this in mind. We need strong leadership right now that is willing to speak in their language. George W Bush might be a moron to some degree, but he is the one that scares our enemies, not John Kerry.

4. I truly believe that our society is being overrun with a severe entitlement complex. Somewhere along the line, we lost sight of the basic tenet of capitalism that each member of society needs to contribute in order to obtain his piece of that ever-expanding pie. Yes, the pie is not finite….the beauty of the system. Everyone can succeed as long as they step up and do what it takes to get their piece. Everyone does not deserve a house and a nice car. Everyone doesn’t deserve economic security. Everyone doesn’t deserve financial stability. Our system in its basic construction does not guarantee that for anyone. Our system does, however, guarantee that those things can be obtained if you work hard and contribute to the system. We all want these things, but many of us somewhere along the line began to think that these are things that we are entitled to, which is a very dangerous thought process. The blood that fills the veins of this economy is laced with sweat from the brow of those making their way.

5. Our government is in dire need of an overhaul. Both parties are dead-set on spending us into oblivion (yes, both parties pmbuko). The only solution is to turn off the faucet. The only solution is to reduce taxation and force them to cut excess spending. Unfortunately, I think that we have gone too far down the line and given the government too much power. Like rats following the piper, the average public views government as the solution to all of society’s ills and are therefore willing to surrender more and more of their personal earnings to the cause. If they don’t, then the IRS thugs come knee-cap them. But, prior to that, they will be labeled as the greedy “rich” for not wanting to pay taxes, for not wanted to foot the bill for every subsidy/entitlement program that they come up with. God forbid the top 2% get back a portion of the well over 50% of the load that they pay for.

6. At the inner layers of this onion is the biggest problem with our government. As with most political bodies (similar to labor unions), the original intent is honorable and worthy, but our government now exists for it’s own existence. Politicians seek only to maintain their own power. They do so by keeping the flock at odds with each other. Using divisive and often unsolvable issues such as abortion and gay marriage, politicians herd the sheep into battle with each other to avoid being seen for what they are. Instead of digging deep into the real and complex issues that affect our daily lives, they keep us sparring over the sound-byte issues that fuel the passion. In doing so, they keep us from uniting (to some degree) behind the more pertinent cause of reforming the institution in which they serve.

Sermon Complete!….As you can see, I’m a bit jaded about politics and the state of the union. The one problem with pulling back the veil of ignorance is the recognition of the true state of affairs and how far things are out of control. When you really start to get a grasp on the system, you begin to wish that you had taken the blue pill.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 05:36 PM
If Bush really had the best long-term interest of our country in mind when he decided on his post 9/11 courses of action, then he should sh*t-can all the BS reason he gave the public and just talk to us straight. More than anything else, it's the fact that he mislead all of us that gets to me.

If he had just told us the truth about his decisions from the get-go, and did nothing else differently, I might actually like the man.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 05:49 PM
TurboDog1,

Wow. That was excellent.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 05:53 PM
turbo- wow.. i agree and disagree with several points on an even scale.. but i just wanted to applaude the post, and the manner in which it was written. i dont agree with everything, but i respect that fact that you wrote it.

see, who says we cant be civil while talkin bout politics..

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 07:19 PM
I present you with an animated history of Saddam Hussein, for those too busy or lazy to read up on him.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 07:41 PM
That's a great link. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of how much of our problems are by our own creation. Our government utilizes it's "Assets" until they outlive their usefulness and then act surprised when they come back to bite us in the ... I would, however, be curious to see source material for the references to us expressing no opinion about their invasion of Kuwait.

Just to show that I am not a die-hard Bush lover, take a look at this link: Buchanan Commentary
This is a document written by Pat Buchanan, who is quite obviously a conservative, in which he lays out a damning case against the administration's motivations for war. I'm not a big fan of his, but I am impressed with his willingness to break ranks w/ the Right. It's not an easy read, but it's very eye-opening. Truthfully, it's some pretty scary stuff.

Let me know if the link doesn't work. It's my first time...I'm a link cherry.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 08:15 PM
consider yourself popped. Link worked fine. I've bookmarked it for later reading, as it seems it needs more of my attention than I can give it from my desk at work.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 08:17 PM
ditto.. i want to read it with time to properly digest.. plus, i would like to cut and paste some of the paragraphs to send to my republican friends..

it might make them think if one of their own its doubting his leadership.

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 08:32 PM
In order for people to change their minds, the following must be true:

-First and foremost, people must be open to the idea that their currently held beliefs may be wrong.

- Second, any evidence that is contrary to their beliefs must be presented delicately. Nobody likes to have the rug pulled out from under their feet; it usually results in denial.


The problem is, the majority of people still on either extreme of the pro-con spectrum regarding the war on Iraq have not come to those conclusions through independent research and digging for information outside the mass madeia, but through allying their viewpoints with various pundits and party mouthpieces. This applies to both the right and the left.

The moral of my post is this: if you're not already open to the possibility of truth on both sides of the fence, then you're not going to change your mind at all anytime soon.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 10:14 PM
"In order for people to change their minds, the following must be true:

-First and foremost, people must be open to the idea that their currently held beliefs may be wrong."

Unless you can see into the future, you cannot say whether the Iraq War was right or wrong.

IMO, it was a morally just war. Who would not be in the right in deposing a tyrant such as Hussein?

Politically, we will have to wait and see. Was it the best move to ensure the safety and security of the US? We cannot possibly know at this point.

Buchanan's long rant is dated march 2003. Maybe somebody knows what he thinks now?

Buchanan is part of the religous right, the Christian conservative wing of the GOP. Allegedly, he is someone who harbors no fondness for Jews. Even so, it is surprising that he sees Judaism as more of a threat to America than Islam. I don't see how either religion in itself could be a threat, but, judging by events, orthodox Jews are no threat while radical Muslims are.

Certainly, our aid to Israel has put us on poor terms with the Arab world. Why do we take sides? Because of the influence of American Jews on our foreign policy? Or because the state of Israel has a democratically elected gov't and the people of Israel hold values more closely aligned with our own?

Maybe establishing Israel was a mistake (as were many well-intentioned efforts in the past), but what do we do about it now? From what I have seen, heard and read, the Arabs want no Israeli state at all. Maybe the Jews could buy Baja from Mexico and start over. Or maybe they will just have to accept their annihilation. I dunno, any ideas? LOL

Other than briefly acknowledging the despotic nature of the Arab regimes (as if it were just a quirky little thing those Arabs do), Buchanan has nothing harsh to say about them. Every paragraph of his article is directed at a perceived Jewish conspiracy.

Questions we need to ask ourselves:
In the long run, how will it affect the US if the trend toward repressive, anti-American gov'ts in the Middle East continues? Short of war, how can that trend be stopped and reversed? If it cannot be stopped without bloodshed, does the region pose a threat to the US?

IMO, this is not Vietnam all over again. We're not talking about impoverished rice-farming peasants in a backwards, insignificant country. Oil revenues that fund nuclear aspirations - combined with institutionalized anti-American education and a culture that does not value human lives (especially those of infidels) - make our interests in the region very keen.

Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 10:28 PM
I don't know how to quote on here, so I'll cut and paste...

>>IMO, it was a morally just war. Who would not be in the right in deposing a tyrant such as Hussein?

If he had WMD and was a threat to us it's one thing to go in and take him out.

But, without the proof what right do we have to go in and oust him? We as a country don't agree with the methods he uses to run his country? So just because we have the power to do what we want and what we think is right we should? No wonder a large part of the world sees us as evil and bullies.

It's hard to do, but try to take a step back and look at things from the other sides view.

Was Saddam a threat? Perhaps he was, perhaps not. But don't go in under the assumption that he is, find no WMD, and then claim it was still a good thing because we got rid of a tyrant.

A lot of people would not have wanted to go in in the first place if the reason was just to get rid of a tyrant who ruled in a way we don't agree with.

Going after Bin Laden was a different story....he is an obvious threat and does need to be taken out. It appears that N. Korea could be a bigger problem then Saddam was though.

*Disclaimer* No, I don't watch all the news shows or keep up to date a lot with this, so I don't have a lot of media influence involved in my views. I'm just trying to look at things from both sides.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/20/04 11:05 PM
"But, without the proof what right do we have to go in and oust him? We as a country don't agree with the methods he uses to run his country? So just because we have the power to do what we want and what we think is right we should? No wonder a large part of the world sees us as evil and bullies."

The above statement would fall in the "politically correct or not?" category. BTW, nice euphemistic quote there, "...the methods he uses to run his own country." As if all methods of ruling are equally moral or just?

By morally just, I meant, "Whose side would God be on?" (not that God would choose sides, or even saying that God exists. Just simplifying "right and wrong"). An imperfect democracy or a murdering tyrant? Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me - and apparently to his own people, as they flooded the streets and celebrated.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 12:28 AM
"IMO, it was a morally just war. Who would not be in the right in deposing a [former US puppet/]tyrant such as Hussein?"

Well, I guess if we made him, then we have the right unmake him, right?

But in all seriousness, only time and the resulting condition of the Iraqi people can really tell us whether or not the war was worthwhile for humanitarian reasons.
Posted By: Hawkson101 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 01:44 AM
""When the significance of money, and therefore wealth decreases, mankind will advance as a society. When healthcare, food, shelter, education and moderate individual accesories are afforded to everyone we, as a race and a country, can start to move towards something bigger then planet earth. Granted, the situation I described is almost utopia like, but it is achievable. With robots and computers ready to take on 80% of the jobs humans do, there will be more free time for us to devote towards individual free time, bettering ourselves and bettering others."

I would have to disagrre with just about everything in the above statement. Money, wealth, capitalism, etc... is the engine that has advanced human civilization to the point we are today.

For example, there is no question that health care in the developed countries is better today than it was 10 years ago or 20 or 100. Why? Because medical research - largely funded by companies looking to make a profit with the latest, greatest life saving drug/machine - has benefited from the incentive capitalism provides.

If the time comes when humans no longer have to work and can just spend their time pondering the angst of their existence, we will be in trouble. It is healthy, nay ESSENTIAL, to strive, to struggle, to want, to achieve. The "free-time utopia" you envision would probably be a very depressing, listless, direction-less place.
"

I think you took my vision of a better society and possibly twisted it just a little:)

Sometime in this century machines will replace most of our daily jobs. What possibilities are there for the human race when most instinctual needs are met without working(very hard or at all) and we have time for other things? In my view space and other conquests will be achieved. IMO that is the time to start looking foward instead of now while healthcare and food are not readily available to everyone.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 01:53 AM
First of all, let me say that I too don't put a ton of weight on anything that Pat Buchanon says. He has long since burned that bridge w/ the extremist crap that he often spews. In this case, I tried diligently to separate his personal assertions from the actual quoted/referenced text. I also followed up by reading up on the think-tank website that these guys maintain, which contains a lot of position papers issued by them...I don't have the link here at home. I will try to post tomorrow.

In the end, I can pallet the idea of these guys brainstorming policy, since those types of groups are probably a dime a dozen. It doesn't surprise me that they were able to get into the positions that they presently hold. I can even accept that their policies may be slanted a little too far in favor of Israel's interests. However, I take comfort in the fact that public opinion and the influence of Congress should keep this generally at bay. My biggest concern is the general sentiment they express to aggressively attack ALL of the militant terrorist groups, such as Jesbola (etc). I obviously would prefer that these groups be eradicated, but I have heartburn about the fact that many of these groups are not our direct enemies at this point in time. If we actually take the aggressive stance that these men are proposing, I fear that we might actually ignite more hatred for the US than we already see in the Middle East. Right now, many of these groups would rather blow up Israel. I'm not quite sure I want to proactively shift their attention to blowing us up.

Now, I want to shift gear to Iraq again for a minute....

First of all, I too find myself questioning the "imminent threat" portion of the administration's argument. I think that they stretched that one a bit to transition from Afghanistan to Iraq. That being said, I personally think that they had an opportunity to pressure the UN to step up to the task...as I stated before. We still would have been the muscle in that scenario, but we would have forced the UN to follow through on their own threats.

On a related note, as expected, the "No WMDs" argument has surfaced. I find this particular argument to be a bit disturbing. Persons arguing will quickly argue that the lack of WMDs found is proof that the war effort was flawed from inception. What they will not readily agree to is the fact that ALL of Congress (Including Hillary and Kerry) voted in favor of the war, based upon the available intel and the perceived threat...which, by the way, has been subsequently confirmed by Russian intel. In addition to this, they often scoff at the idea that Saddam most assuredly hid all of the weapons in question either out in the desert or probably in Syria, which is presently acting as the terrorist turnstile. To agree to these points, you have to admit that the Bush administration did the right things based upon the information available....and that's not going to happen.

The second of the above points completely perplexes me. If you go through the different UN resolutions and documents, there is ample proof that Saddam had WMDs (yes, probably US-made). While doing that search, you also quickly see that he spent ten years (on and off) giving UNSCUM the runaround and depriving them of unfettered access to Iraqi facilities. Neither of these is disputed. Given that, I'm not sure why everyone can't connect the dots and see that he hid the weapons. Did he just go and destroy them and not tell the UN?....why?...makes no sense. Did he not have them at all?...nope. UN reports document their existence. So, that's not a valid position. Did he use them?...there's no evidence of that, beyond the early days of gassing thousands of his own people (yes, after we encouraged them to revolt and left them hanging). What's left is to assume that Saddam hid the WMDs. It's not a copout....it's the only explanation...simple logic. They had to go somewhere....occam's razor, is it?

I hope it's apparent now that I'm not fully arguing in favor of either side. I am merely trying to address points as they come up. I think that we all are guilty of picking up the party line sometimes without questioning the motives of the particular argument. Right now, the Democrats have selective amnesia concerning their support for this war and their statements concerning the Iraqi threat. Their demigod was the first to admit that Iraq was a problem that needed to be dealt with....too bad he hadn't snatched up Bin Laden when the Sudanese offered him up on a silver platter. No way I wasn't going to toss that out to stir things up.

In reading over this post, I realize that I'm a bit scattered in my argument....Oh well, long day.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 01:58 AM
If you are bringing God into it, they would surely say he is on their side...that's the whole motiviation. I of course don't agree with that (or even that he takes "sides" in the affairs of men).

As to his methods being just, no they aren't for what we expect. Does that make it our job to police the world and take out all leaders that we don't consider to be just? Why should our version of right be considered the right for the whole world? Sounds kind of like what Hitler wanted...his version of right for everyone.

Now before you saying I am not being PC again, no I am not comparing the US to Hitler...I think we live in a great country and I feel lucky that I happened to be born in it and enjoy all of the freedoms that we have. I'm just trying to look at things from outside of the US perspective and try to see it as some other countries do. Not everyone has had the privledge of growing up and living their lives in a country like ours, so they have different perspectives on things. At the same time, I don't think this means we should try to free every country and try to give them the freedoms we enjoy. Not only is it not our job as a superpower, but there are many countries out there that would resent it (not just the leaders/govt., but the people too).
Posted By: Hawkson101 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 02:18 AM
"I think that we are indeed in the middle of world war with us on one side and radical Islam on the other. This is not a war of religion for us; it’s a war for survival. I think that we have forgotten the horror of 9/11, which is understandable, to an extent. We are so wrapped up in our own little worlds to pay attention to the bigger picture…However, the terrorists are still out there planning ways to kill YOU. No matter what we do, they want us dead. 9/11 was a wake-up call, but it didn’t last long enough. We’ve settled right back into our normal day-to-day life and lost sight of the underlying fact that the adversary in this situation does not forget, does not get back to normal life, does not have a change of heart. He wants us dead no matter what. The next time we hear from them on American soil, it might be when they vaporize 10 million people with a nuclear device. That day is coming…mark my words. This fact alone should keep you up at night. So, when you are standing at that ballot box, keep this in mind. We need strong leadership right now that is willing to speak in their language. George W Bush might be a moron to some degree, but he is the one that scares our enemies, not John Kerry. "


You are correct we are at war with radical islam. But how exactly do you propose we fight this war? With bullets and bombs? With harsh words and forceful politics? That doesn't sound like good foreign policy to me.
What George Bush proposes is to beat radical islam into submission until they no longer believe it is in their best interests to fight and die for what they believe.

Since these people are willing to die for what they believe how is that killing them will eliminate their conviction to fight?

Granted, we can kill their leaders and partly remove institutions that foster these terrorists groups and the ideas that form them, but the problem and the anti-american sentiment will still be there. Others will take their place. Others will die in their place. Others will take up the cause.

It is perposteruous to me to think that you can kill an idea with bullets and bombs and that is exactly what GWBush is planning on. Think Braveheart. Think Israel and Northern Ireland.

The way to solve the 'terrorist' problem is to first figure out why the [censored] they are so pissed off in the first place. Can anyone honestly say why they are pissed off? I have seen my dateline and CNN specials, but what have we really learned about them. According to dateline they feel we have invaded their culture. And we have insulted their god. And a number of other things.

But thats Bullshit. It is a multitude of issues that we have yet to work out. Once we figure out the economics, politics, and religious problem they have with us can we solve our differences.

And when we do figure out the problem, we can figure out the solution. It seems to me that we know they want to kill us, and that we must stop them from killing us.
George Bush says this crap is the problem and that he is solving it by going to war with iraq. That isn't the problem. That is the result of radical Islamic problem that already exists.

We need a leader NOT like George Bush who understands that the hearts and minds of Islam will NOT be won over with bullets and bombs.

It is so unbearably frusterating to think that we have a president who says he is trying to win a war with Islam while completely ignoring Islam. Instead he concentrates on Iraq which contrary to Fox's "Cheney said so" approach, was not a part of radical Islams attack on America.

What is also frusterating is that former 'non-radicalists' of Islam are becoming more and more radical thinks to George Bush. George Bush is the cause of problems by completely ignoring Islam.

We went into Iraq without any regard for others, and now that Iraq is a junk hole, we look to others for help. If you put yourself in their shoes, it is hard to imagine they have any sympathy for us anymore.

America was in a great position to change the world after 9-11. We had the hearts of people all over the world with us and the momentum after Afgahnistan to change a lot. Instead we [censored] it up and went to Iraq.

George Bush [censored] my generation. Period




Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 02:29 AM
"IMO that is the time to start looking foward instead of now while healthcare and food are not readily available to everyone."

Now, here is where I'm going to come off as cold, but I have to do it.

First of all, widespread hunger is not a problem here in the US. We are probably by far the fattest nation in the world. This obesity problem extends will into the impoverished areas. Those that would have you believe otherwise are often the ones that manipulate survey results where kids answered questions like "Are you ever hungry at school?" and paint the results to imply widespread childhood hunger.

As far as healthcare goes, I will go out on a limb and say that everyone has access to healthcare in some form or another. Those in poverty may not be part of an HMO, but they still have options w/ clinics, emergency rooms, medicaid, etc. It's not an ideal situation, but it's still far better than the majority of nations on this planet. The recent surge in socialist sentiment in the Democratic party would have everyone in society have the same level of healthcare services. To do so, someone is going to have to bear that financial burden....ie, taxpayers. Before we go down that road, I would prefer that those seeking higher standards of healthcare do what it takes to advance their career prospects, which will directly result in meeting their needs.

Again, our society too easily falls into this government can solve everything mode. If an individual, no matter what their income bracket is, wants to raise their standard of living, it's not the governments responsibility to provide that. It's each of our responsibilities to make our own way. Government progrems should be to help those in lugitimate need....not to subsidize the lower end of the financial spectrum with money taken by force from "the rich".
Posted By: Hawkson101 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 02:45 AM
Turbo Dog-I understand what you are saying and I agree you with 100%. I am talking in generalities and I do know there are specifics that have to be worked out. When I say we need to fix healthcare and food I mean for the whole world. The US will be fine assuming we do not get annihilated. But if we go to mars to claim the red planet in the name of mankind, we should be able to look upon earth from mars knowing mankind is in good order. It used to be(and still is) that humans looked to the skies to get away from the harsh reality of earth, and in the future we can look to the skies knowing that is our reality.

But until we have conquered our problems on planet earth, conquering mars will not, and should not happen.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 02:56 AM
That is the quandry, isn't it. How do we fight this battle? You assert that the first step is to understand Islam and the true source of this sentiment. I think that I would agree with this statement to some extent. It is necessary to truly understand how we have affected this region and created the very sentiment that we are now fighting against. When you really start to understand that, the situation gets even more complex. They don't just hate us because we have intruded on their region. They hate us because we have played w/ them like chess pieces, pitting them against each other to meet our needs and then bailing out on them after we get what we want. But, in the end, the biggest problem is that we represent the antithesis of the fundamentalist culture that they are trying to sustain.

Now, once you gain this better understanding, what do you do with that information? They are still coming, no matter what we do. Our only hope is that the region begins to police itself. But, in the interim, we either sit idly by and wait for the next attack or we finish what we started in Iraq and demonstrate our resolve, the one thing that they do understand about us. There is no resolving of differences in this scenario. With Allah as their guide, they have vowed to destroy us...we can't talk ourselves out of that.

As far as Iraq being a "junk-hole", I think that there are relatives of the tens of thousands of dead kirds that might disagree with that. There are millions of Iraqis that now have a level of freedom they could only have imagined. The only thing turning Iraq into a "junk-hole" is the unending flow of terrrorists from surrounding countries fighting tooth and nails to stop the establishment of a free Iraq. The biggest problem facing Iraqi muslims right now is not the Americans. We're spilling American blood daily trying to protect them. The problem they are facing now is the fundamentalist Islamic radicals killing fellow muslims. Based upon recent proclamations from Iraqi groups demanding the end to these terrorist attacks, it's fair to assume that there is hope that Islam will start to police Islam. Personally, I think that is our best hope for resolution.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 03:04 AM
Hawkson, I understand what you are saying. However, there is another side of me that thinks that halting innovation is a dangerous thing. Right now, the world is still a bunch of Neanderthols clubbing each other over whose God is best. One could argue that massive change requires massive catalysts. What happens if we were to find some kind of proof of life on Mars. Think of the global ramifications if our species was able to know for sure that we are not alone in this game? I agree....It's a tough question when you see mass starvation and AIDS in Africa. However, I also realize that the NASA budget isn't enough to solve the worlds problems...unless of course we can find proof of ET.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 03:04 AM
I certainly did not intend to bring God into the discussion, but when discussing matters of right and wrong it is easier to refer to that paradigm. Pmbuko got my drift by acknowledging that the humanitarian benefit/cost of the war is yet to be seen. Keep in mind, however, that Saddam - terrible as he was - would have been succeeded by another despot.

"As to his methods being just, no they aren't for what we expect. Does that make it our job to police the world and take out all leaders that we don't consider to be just? Why should our version of right be considered the right for the whole world?"

I've never met a Saddam apologist before. Although the link pmbuko supplied earlier came close, stating that Kuwait brought it on themselves. Talk about battered-wife syndrome!

Regardless, Saddam was not viewed as a "true believer" by other Muslims and his hold on power was not affirmed by the graces of Allah. He ruled by fear; the fear that if you opposed him your family would be murdered (hey, you're right, those aren't tactics we would expect from our gov't. To each his own I guess). The poor guys that rushed our tanks with AKs probably had the same fate awaiting them if they had refused. They weren't fighting for Allah, IMO.

"I'm just trying to look at things from outside of the US perspective and try to see it as some other countries do."

I'm not. As an American, I am interested in the health and welfare of my own. No doubt the rest of the world feels the same way, despite their rhetoric to the contrary. Like it or not, there is no int'l system of gov't which unites us all as one people. I look in the eyes of my little boy and know that I could give a rat's ass what the French think.

If it is not our job to police the world then we may as well scrap the UN. Fine by me. But, as we saw on 9/11, the issues in the Middle East - which the gov't is now attempting to address - have direct impact on the lives of Americans in their home country. Not policing the world, but looking out for our own interests.


Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 03:32 AM
Scrap the UN? That's the best idea I've heard tonight. Many people seem to view the UN as some kind of early-days Federation from Star Trek, a unifying body of like minds. It's very unfortunate, but this optimistic view of the UN is misguided. The UN does NOT have the best interests of the US in mind. In fact, a good case can be made for stating that the UN is about as anti-American as you can get, while maintaining enough composure to happily accept the massive US contributions/dues. As we saw with Iraq, three of the largest European powers threw us under the bus in order to maintain their own personal corrupt agenda. I say, pull the funding, disband the damn thing, and start over w/ equal power. That way, the Frogs won't have veto power over a nation willing to actually do a damn thing beside bend over and take it.

OK...I'm done for the night. Political talk does nothing but stress me out. These problems have gotten far beyond our control. When I really think about it, I fear for the future of my little girl, who hopefully will be arriving in the next couple weeks. I guess the best I can do is just do my best to raise an intelligent and compassionate young lady....and hope that the rest of the world can finally get it's #$%& together before they blow it all up.
Posted By: Hawkson101 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 03:41 AM
"Our only hope is that the region begins to police itself. But, in the interim, we either sit idly by and wait for the next attack or we finish what we started in Iraq and demonstrate our resolve, the one thing that they do understand about us. There is no resolving of differences in this scenario. With Allah as their guide, they have vowed to destroy us...we can't talk ourselves out of that. "


Why is it that we have to attack them in order to keep ourselves safe? I don't want to sound like a peace loving hippie but can't we at least think about peaceful solutions?

I am glad that you also recognize we must fully figure out what the problem is, and neither your nor I have any significant relevations about what they are. But since we both know these problems are compex and we agree the solution will be equally complicated, I must reiterate that we can not simply solve our problem by kiling those who oppose us. I must reiterate that killing those who are willing to die does not eliminate the problem. It only temporary removes, and then inflames the problem.


Also, I would like to point out that this is not the cold war again. It is not our resolve vs. their resolve and our economy vs their economy. We can not fight this war like any normal war. Our methods must change. And not our tactical methods. We must change our ideas on war in order to win this war.

If you kill 1 terrorist, their neighbor, their brother, and their brothers neighbor will take their place. We can not and should not expect to win the war by killing radical islamist. We can expect to win the war by focusing on prevention and religous and cultural diplomacy.



Also, what does this statement mean. "But, in the end, the biggest problem is that we represent the antithesis of the fundamentalist culture that they are trying to sustain."

I am not just trying to be cute with this question. I don't believe we are the exact opposite of radical Islam and that our differences can not be resolved. Its true our values our different at times, but that statement sounds too much like a soundbite from a politician. Please elaborate.

"The only thing turning Iraq into a "junk-hole" is the unending flow of terrrorists from surrounding countries fighting tooth and nails to stop the establishment of a free Iraq."
The first part of the statement is simply not true.
The latest official report out of Iraq has stated that of the 5000 prisoners in custody under a 100 are foreign. The exact figure eludes me but it was less then 2% of them are foreign.
Fox news(which is where I believe this statement comes from) is not news. News is reporting the facts as they are, not as one wants them to be.

In any case, the situation in Iraq is debatable. One poll will say "Iraqis believe they are better off now then before Saddaam", but another poll will say "Iraqis are less happy without saddamm."

It is difficult to analyze a situation where the kurds are free, almost a thousand Americans are dead and many more thousands of Iraqis are dead.

Are you willing to put your life on the line to go to some country you will never visit otherwise so the Kurds can be free? It is a noble idea and a noble cause, but the repercussions can be enormous. To be honest, I care more about the tragedy in Sudan and the AID's crisis in Africa more then the Kurds in Iraq. THe Kurds were living their lives a in a functional, although slightly oppressive goverment for 10 years without incident.

Now if Saddam had WMD and he had started going at the Kurds again that would be a different story. But he didn't have WMD and he wasn't commiting genocide against the Kurds yet we still went in there. Lets concetrate on the terrorists and the threats that affect Americans and not some shitty country I will never visit and will never affect me.


Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 04:30 AM
EVERYONE has to watch this (with sound)

http://www.jibjab.com/

Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 12:18 PM
just thought i would throw this in here.

looks like a few of us arent the only ones worried about the money being wasted on space exploration. i just saw where the House subcommittee(which is republican based), has voted to cut NASA funding by 7%, to allow for more money to be put into a veterans benefits package. i guess it finally made sense to someone to spend good money on the americans 'down here', than the void 'up there'?

bigjohn
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 12:33 PM
Hawkson,

I agree that diplomacy has to be our primary method of handling inernational affairs. However, I think that you have a bit of an unrealistic impression of how much possibility for diplomacy there is in this situation. Those that we are fighting against do not value life. They are willing to die, based upon a misguided view of the afterlife and piles of virgins at the foot of Allah. We are not really dealing with radicals....we are dealing with fanatics. The atrocity of 9/11 clearly displays the types of people we are dealing with.

Now, with that being said, I again agree that diplomacy must be our primary path for dealing with the region and all of it's complexities. But, in regards to terrorists, they must simply die like rabid dogs, because they won't stop trying to bite us, no matter what we do. If we can simultaneously follow these two paths, we indeed have a better chance of getting out of this mess.

As to the issue of resolve, I have to disagree with you. Every day, there is a bombing of sorts over in Iraq. Have you ever wondered why they happen like that?...not in larger clusters? Every night, CNN will show the daily dose of Iraqi terrorism, just like they want it. Their whole goal is to break the resolve of the US. How better to do that than to assure that every American's dinner-time news contains it's daily dose of death in Iraq? Now, let's assume that this works and we simply pull out like Spain or the Philipines. Do you truly think that they will leave us alone after that?...not a chance. The difference is that we are the target here. The only thing we can do is show them that we will not be deterred from our cause.

On a larger note, this may not be the Cold War, but we are the last remaining superpower. In that position, we simply cannot afford to have anyone question our resolve.

"antithesis of the fundamentalist culture that they are trying to sustain"

What exactly about the West is it that you think they are fighting against? Our society is founded upon the idea of freedom and our system is based upon the ideals of Capitalism and the secular ideal of speparation of church and state. In essence, everything that we represent is the opposite of the system these extremists are fighting to maintain, a system based upon strict fundamentalist doctrine. I think we have different views on the depth of the hatred and resolve in our advisary, as you again mention diplomacy in dealing with terrorists. I hope I am wrong, but I don't share that optimism. Again, actions from 9/11 make it clear to me the value they place on life and the level of hatred they hold for us.

I'd have to see your source for your comments about the makeup of the prisoners. Beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct. However, the makeup of those prisoners is not necessarily a reflection of the makeup of the insurgency. I'm not there, but I would suspect that we don't catch many of these terrorists as they set the roadside bombs and those fighting directly with our soldiers either end up disappearing into the wind or end up swiss cheese in the sand. Those in prison may only be suspected collaborators, etc. In the end, you have to think about this from all sides and realize that each news medium has it's own agenda. If you want to show the war in a bad light, it's easy to take reports/facts out of context and lead your viewers to unsupported conclusions...Just ask Michael Moore.

When I was referencing the Kurds, I wasn't talking about their freedom. I was referencing the relatives of the thousands of Kurds that Hussein gassed using those non-existent WMDs. I am quite sure that they are happy to be out from under Hussein's brutal thumb.

At days end, this problem is bigger than us sitting here jockeying back and forth. This war will continue for generations, regardless. We can only hope we don't turn the Earth into a wasteland in the process.

OK, off to work, now that I'm late as hell.
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 01:11 PM
Man, I don't think any thread has every generated this many looooooooooooooong posts. No wonder there were political discussions breaking out everywhere...
Posted By: denver Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 01:54 PM
Someone else sent me a link to the animated film clip that INANE recommended - it's great. Here's a bit more direct link: http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/this_land_af. Click on "Watch Film" to see Bush and Kerry trade insults to the tune of "This Land is Your Land."
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 04:38 PM
According to a 2 hour documentary (which generally painted a negative view of the war) that I saw on the Dicovery Times channel (or was it Discovery Civilizations?) there were large numbers of Syrians who had crossed the border to do battle with the infidels. I don't know if they're still there or not, but the insurgents seem practiced at terrorist-type attacks.


Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 04:47 PM
I don't agree with what Saddam did or how he ran his country, but in the bigger picture, I don't think we should go take out anyone we don't agree with either.

As for policing the world, if it is anyone's job it is the entire UN. The rest of the UN wasn't convinced, but we went in anyway. The UN may be the closest thing to the police, but not the US alone.

As far as looking outside the US perspective, it fits in with some of the other messages in this thread. If we don't look at them and try to understand them we aren't going to get anywhere. Is continuing to throw troops at them going to solve anything? They aren't giving up...they look forward to dying because of their extremist views. I'm sure they think there are more riches and women for them with Allah the more of us they can take out first.
I think we need to look beyond Saddam at the big picture...how does the rest of the world view our actions. How do we affect relations by taking out these weaker countries. A lot of other countries don't view what we did as right, regardless of opinion in the US (which is divided, as we can tell). As was mentioned earlier, let's just not keep fighting everyone and creating more enemies along the way.

This can go on and on, because I don't think anyone knows what the right answer is and how to ultimately handle the situation effectively. I don't think the govt. has been able to do it, and I don't have much confidence that Kerry taking over would lead to a different plan of action that would work either. I've had enough of this thread for now....I'm out.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 04:56 PM
Hilarious link Inane. I've emailed that to lots of folks. Thanks.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 09:12 PM
npnp BigWill

In reply to:


I've had enough of this thread for now....I'm out.




I can't get enough of this thread. We definitely have both sides going at it here, but its pretty civil and I'd say constructive.

/wishes politians would figure this out


Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 09:16 PM
I'll agree it's an interesting read...I just don't feel like debating back and forth forever...I'll continue to check it out though.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 09:19 PM
"As for policing the world, if it is anyone's job it is the entire UN. The rest of the UN wasn't convinced, but we went in anyway. The UN may be the closest thing to the police, but not the US alone."

I agree, we aren't going to solve this world problem right now, which is why it's good that this thread seems to be quieting down....ie, I'm shutting up.

Before I go ... I do however think that there is some flaws with your above argument. First of all, the UN spent 10 years issuing unending resolutions condemning Iraq's continual defiance of their authority. That tells me that, at least on the surface, the UN was against the Iraqi regime and it's actions. The problem that quickly became apparent is that the leading members of the UN (France, Germany, & Russia) are acting in their own interests and not fulfilling their responsibilities to the UN. Yes, the UN should be the world police, but they have to have credibility to do so. So far, they aren't doing so well at that. As I said before, the handling of Iraq was a good opportunity for the administration to call out the UN and force them to act on their own resolutions, regardless of the interests of their individual members. In my eyes, Bush screwed the pooch in not stomping on the UN a little harder to do it's job before we went ahead w/out them.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 09:27 PM
In reply to:


The problem that quickly became apparent is that the leading members of the UN (France, Germany, & Russia) are acting in their own interests and not fulfilling their responsibilities to the UN.




That is EXACTLY why the U.N. is completely irrelavant. EVERY nation, including the U.S. has its own intentions at heart. Nothing GW could have done would have changed the outcome. Even France reconzied Iraq had these weapons but choose to do nothing because it suited them best.

Furthermore I believe better than half of the members in the U.N. are representing dictatorships. Not many of those are ever going to look fondly apon U.S. interests.

Further furthermore, why should we care/respect these countrys that don't allow their citizans even the most basic rights. Sure its not practical to overthrow all those opressive governments, but the U.S. shouldn't care very much what they think in an IRRELAVENT (and corrupt) U.N.

Just add this to the STACK of reason's why Kerry would make a terrible President (he wants to bow to the U.N. and rest of the world).

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/21/04 11:07 PM
In reply to:

Even France reconzied Iraq had these weapons but choose to do nothing because it suited them best.


Vaht iz dees? Peek on Frohnz veek? Saddam 'ussein vas not a t'reat to uhs! Go beck to yor "Freedom Fries" and leef uhs de 'eck alohn!
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 12:43 AM
You keep it fun, dude.

I thought I may have been a little too sarcastic last night - sorry Zarak, but I was sauced.

How about Linda Ronstadt? Or the topic on O'Reilly's show last night (re: Canadaian opinion of the US)? Or Arnold's "girlie men" comment?
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 03:18 AM
I love the fact there is a politician (Arnold) that will just tell it like it is.

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 03:21 AM
How about that crazy defiance of the laws of physics?....that document that fell off the table, went under the pant leg, and slid into the sock.

Or maybe Martha?...another victim claiming conspiracy to avoid actually admitting guilt. Maybe she can gather some yard dust and bake herself a large pillow to support her magnificently large head.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 03:31 AM
I don't understand how anybody likes that Martha Stewart. She's just a mean old broad that keeps a clean house.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 03:38 AM
But, she has a mean recipe for meatloaf, as long as you have a pinch of black tica leaf found only in the canopy of the Brazilian rain forest and two pinches of red yanka root found only under a particular ledge about 2/3rds the way up mount kilamonjaro.

OK....so that's a stretch. I've been priming the basement all night, so I'm borderline delerious by this point. My only hope is a stiff vodka tonic to bring me back to this world.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 03:42 AM
I think pmbuko told me you can smoke that tica leaf.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 04:03 AM
Actually, Hawkson told me that you can mash up the yanka root, mix it into a smoothie, and then have an out-of-body transcendental experience....perhaps even open your eyes and find yourself on Mars.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 05:34 AM
I can make you laugh, and I can push your buttons, too.
Posted By: KC_Mike Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 06:55 AM
Think about something. If the top 1% of the people make 90% of the money, doesn't that mean they roughly account for 90% of personal tax revenues?

I mean, what does somebody on my income contribute tax wise? The government might be able to build one bomb with the tax revenue taken from my wages....if its a dumb bomb.

Now take a guy like Bill Gates. The government receives tax revenue from his personal finances and from the company he started. Had he never started a company...think how much tax revenue would be lost from Microsoft in the last 10 years alone. Not to mention the local tax revenues generated by the sale of Microsoft's prodcuts and services. Some people complain about the ultra-rich without considering how much they contribute to the system. Not only that, but the ultra rich, like Bill Gates, start companies that create jobs etc. How many of us 'regular joes' out there can say they contribute in that fashion?

I don't hear anybody complaining about all the illegal aliens who get paid cash under the table and don't pay into the tax system. Sometimes, I guess its just easier for some people to blame the rich.


Posted By: KC_Mike Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 07:40 AM
What if we never invaded Iraq and ten years from now a nuke goes off in a US city and we discover Saddam financed the operation...or maybe lent out his nuclear scientists to terrorists....or maybe allowed the safe passage of plutonium through his country etc etc.

Would people then say, "you know, we should have went in there and done something. Bush really failed by standing on the sidelines and doing nothing about Saddam/Iraq".

Sure, its easy to say things like that. But isn't that what some people said about Clinton? Didn't they say Clinton failed by not taking out Bin Laden and Al-qaida when he had the chance? Sometimes history does repeat itself.

Would you all rather we did nothing and not know what exactly was going on in Iraq? Or would you rather we took the chance even if it meant we might be wrong. And as far as that is concerned, I don't think the WMD is that clearcut. Maybe 5-20 years from now, we will really know the status of WMD. Everybody expects that we should know the truth and that everything should be clear. We didn't find any...thus they must have never existed right? Maybe or maybe not. Is the truth sometimes hard to come by. You bet it is. To this day nobody knows for sure who killed JFK, and that happened in our own country.

While I am not a Bush-lover, I do love my country and I can't stand the fact that so many people are so quick to judge......believing they know exactly what is going based on the news they watch or listen. If you believe what the news reports and that it is not skewed in any way, then I guess Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy right?

If you believe the news, then you also probably believe the ATF burning down the Davidian compound in Waco was an accident and that Koresh was a child-raping maniac. It took what, 2 years for the truth to come out about Waco. If you never saw the documentary about Waco...you need to see it. It's appalling how badly we were all lied to.



Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 07:52 AM
In reply to:

What if we never invaded Iraq and ten years from now a nuke goes off in a US city and we discover Saddam financed the operation...or maybe lent out his nuclear scientists to terrorists....or maybe allowed the safe passage of plutonium through his country etc etc.


Are you serious? Hypotheticals are never a good enough reason to go to war.

"I thought he was going to punch me next year, so I hit him today." Yeah. Uh huh.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 07:57 AM
In reply to:

It's appalling how badly we were all lied to


You forgot the one about how the Oklahoma City bombing was a government conspiracy. And how we never landed on the moon. It must be true because the media didn't tell us that.

Not everything the media tells us is a lie. It's often just not the whole truth.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 10:18 AM
[sarcasm]What if?

What if 10 years into the future Israel and the US aren't on good terms, and Israeli's give terrorists one of their nukes to use on us? Well, it's hypothetically possible, so we should go invade em now, just to make sure! And we know they've got weapons of mass destruction already!

On second thought, heck, it's hypothetically possible that every major world power, and a bunch of lesser powers might attack us sometime in the vague future. For the sake of protecting our own, I say we invade everyone! You're either with us or against us![/sarcasm]
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 02:47 PM
AdamP88, the hypothetical situations are pointless, but it is clear radical fundamentalist Muslims mean to kill US civilians now and in the future. What is the best way to combat such a foe?

And pmbuko, you cannot push my buttons - I refuse to click that link.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 03:46 PM
bigwill-

well, here.. try this link with big boobs

i also found this one interesting.. it has free HT

and rush limbaugh had some real bad stuff to say about kerry

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 05:32 PM
You almost got me with the "Big Boobs", bigjohn, but mama drowned all the dumb ones.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 07:00 PM
yes, BigWill. But Saddam is not a radical fundamentalist Muslim. Radical fundamentalist Muslims do what they do for the glory of Allah. Saddam does (did) it for his own glory.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 09:55 PM
Why are we still talking about the war? Saddam is a bad, bad guy - as bad as they come. Iraq will be better off without him, regardless of whether the US invasion was a violation of int'l law or not.

***And the war has done nothing to harm US/Arab relations. If anything it has provided the possibility for real change in the Middle East.***

It also turns out (according to the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee's 9/11 report) that Bush didn't "lie" in the State of the Union Address about Saddam seeking uranium, or about Saddam having a relationship with Al Qaeda. While Saddam may not have been involved specifically in the 9/11 attacks, how can anyone possibly defend him or his brutal regime?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 10:15 PM
Not to jump to my brother's defense, or anything, but nobody here is a Saddam apologist. It's quite obvious he was bad and needed to be "toppled" in one way or another. Nobody is debating that fact. It's the "one way or another" part that (most rational) people have questions about.

The fact is, there was no immediate threat that warranted the haste in which we went about the military intervention -- even if the intelligence they had at the time of the planning -- Saddam seeking uranium, Saddam having relationship with al Qaeda, etc. -- was actually true.

Do you expect us to look at the past, brush it off, and just say "Bygones..." ?
Posted By: Ken.C Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 10:20 PM
"Why are we still talking about the war?"

Why are we still talking about the war?!!

Hell, if you're going to ask that, then why are we still talking about September 11? Or the Enron scandal? (oh, wait, we're not...)

It's a national event. It was precipitated by the President. It's an election year. Therefore, we should be looking at the President's prior performance in order to determine whether he should be reelected.

Interesting... I read an editorial at lunch today (unfortunately, I don't know which paper) that indicated that this is the Republication message at the moment: "What war?"
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 10:28 PM
In reply to:

It was precipitated by the President.


I wasn't aware our President was a chemist...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 10:32 PM
I said earlier that from a foreign policy POV it is yet to be seen whether the war will benefit the US or not. My personal feeling is that the war has done nothing to hurt our interests and has hastened the possibility of reform in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

It appears we will lose about a thousand of our guys over there with many more permanently injured. I sincerely hope that the sacrifices those guys have made was not in vain. From what I've read, the local families who have lost their sons and husbands want that to be the case as well.

The soldiers who return seem shocked at the negative portrayal of the war that is being fed to the public. From what I have heard the soldiers say, they are under the impression that they're over there doing good things for other people. That was not always the case in Vietnam, was it?

I just don't see how it can be argued that the war was "wrong" - without arguing that all wars are wrong.
Posted By: Ken.C Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 10:40 PM
Obviously we consume different media. I've heard reports of several soldiers coming home (the ones that actually get to come home...) and writing books, making commentaries, etc. against the war.

My feeling is that the war has inflamed anger towards us in the Islamic world. It has given the terrorists new excuses to attack us and recruit more people to attack us.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/22/04 10:43 PM
"I just don't see how it can be argued that the war was "wrong" - without arguing that all wars are wrong."

That last line is a huge leap. Wrong or not for this one is obviously open to debate(as we've seen here). I don't see many people saying the Revolutionary War was wrong, it was wrong to stop the Axis powers in WWII, or any number of other wars I could likely list with a little thought.

I guess if Bush Sr. just took out Saddam the first time that part wouldn't be an issue anyway....or who knows, maybe someone worse would be there all this time...it is tough to predict the future and play the what if game.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 02:09 AM
"My feeling is that the war has inflamed anger towards us in the Islamic world. It has given the terrorists new excuses to attack us and recruit more people to attack us."

You feel the anger coming out of the Middle East now because of all the attention the madia has been giving it as a result of 9-11 and events since. It has been there and been spreading for a long time. There are reasons for the anger - some real, some imagined - that have nothing to do with Bush or the war in Iraq.

The WTC was attacked twice by terrorists - the first time in '94 (?) and again 9-11. The 9-11 attack was in the planning stages probably during Clinton's first term (not trying to blame him at all), well before Bush and the Iraq war. How about the murder of Olympic athletes in Munich, Iranian hostage crisis in the late '70s, the 244 Marines that were killed by Libyan terrorists, the jumbo jet that was bombed out of the sky in Scotland, USS Cole bombing, apparently a failed assassination attempt against G.H.W. Bush, the millenium bombing plot foiled at the border by sheer luck, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch more examples. Remember the celebrations touched off all over the Middle East by the fall of the towers and the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?

The anger has been there a long time, maybe your media sources were ignoring it before, when there was a Democrat in the Oval Office?

Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 02:22 AM
""Why are we still talking about the war?"

Why are we still talking about the war?!!

Hell, if you're going to ask that, then why are we still talking about September 11? Or the Enron scandal? (oh, wait, we're not...)"

Didn't see this one before!

I thought we had reached an intractable(?) position on both sides. You guys said it was going to work out poorly for us. I said it's impossible to know, but I'm hoping for the best as things in the region couldn't have been worse prior to the war.

What's left to discuss?


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 02:28 AM
I hate posting 3 in a row, but WTF.

"I don't see many people saying the Revolutionary War was wrong..."

I had a political philosophy professor who was a communist (with a little "c" he would emphasize) that said the American Revolution was a war started by a bunch of farmers who didn't want to pay their taxes. Hilarious.

He was a great old guy, always saying the most outrageous things to try to wake up the morons filling the seats. He called me a "nasty reactionary bastard", but I could see the twinkle in his eye.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 04:41 AM
Man, this thread keeps breathing....gotta love it. Figured I'd throw a couple things into the mix to stir things up:

1. Listened to the 9/11 news conference today. It's good to hear that they are taking the non-partisan tack. If they laid any blame, nothing would have come of their recommendations...assuming that something will happen now. It was actually surprising, since the actual hearings that I saw had an extreme partisan slant.....Kerry & Bienvenista (spelling?) were completely rude. It's wasn't the actual questions, it was the utter disrespect that they showed in their tone. They had total wood at the prospect of tacking this thing on Bush, so much that they lost their objectivity. Perhaps they were humbled by the republicans on the committee that reminded them that their boy had 8 years to handle this problem, including the Sudan/Bin Laden offer, and Bush had 8 months. I didn't say that I was going to be non-partisan.

2. Kind of concerned that no one from the left seems to show any concern about the findings concerning Saddam's quest to obtain uranium. Do they not realize that uranium is the missing link keeping one of these nutcases from turning Manhattan into a pile of dust? I remember when I found out a while back that we had proof that the Syrians/Sudanese (one of them) were brokering a deal between China and Hussein to obtain long-range rocket fuel. This is not the stuff that they fuel the SCUDs with. This is the grade of fuel that they pump into ICBMs. I brought this up in an argument/discussion and it didn't seem to sink in. Saddam was attempting to acquire fuel for weapons meant to traverse continents, not countries. Is there any confusion about what exactly he wanted this for? But, Hussein wasn't an imminent threat....or was he? Perhaps his threat was his willingness to sell his weapons to the terrorists. Perhaps he already sold some of those weapons to the terrorists. But, that shouldn't be a problem, since Hussein wasn't an imminent threat.

3. How about that story about 3 nucs being found in Iraq? For a minute, I was so pumped....before, they printed that it was a bogus story leaked by a local arab newspaper. Oh well.

4. I guess no one wants to bite on the Berger issue that I referenced last night. It's getting even tastier w/ reports that he asked the monitors that oversee people viewing these classified docs to step away so he could make personal calls (clearly against their policies). Those same monitors noted that he took an inordinate amount of trips to the restroom. They are also stating that they actually saw him stuffing the papers into his pants. But wait, this was just sloppiness on his part, right? The Dems, including Clinton, keep deflecting the issue by talking about "the curious timing". That way, they don't admit that he breached high level security protocols, which should land him behind bars. That tactic should sound familiar to Clinton. Rather than ever admit that he broke the law, he spent the entire time clamouring about the vast right wing conspiracy. Perhaps they did circle the wagons when they smelled blood, but Clinton was the one who drew that blood....or was that cigar residue?

OK, it's late and I'm done bantering.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 11:57 AM
i think one other interesting aspect to the 9/11 hearings, are the fact that they are being released 4 days before the democratic national convention. now some may see that as a boost for kerry, but i dont, and heres why.

in every poll i have seen, the american public sees bush as the better candidate to run the country during a war.. hence, he is a war president.. but, they see kerry as the better candidate at achieving financial stability, hence, an economic president. now, i am sure that was/is a major platform for the democrats to discuss during their convention next week.. but, with the 9/11 reports just being released.. now the thought of the war, and 9/11 in general, is back in the forefront of all americans minds.. its what everyone interested in politics is talking about. so, in my opinion, that will be a blow to the democratic party, cause if the majority of americans have 'war' on their minds, then it isnt a far stretch to think that they will have george w on their minds also..

this is an interesting angle that the democrats will have to be very careful about.. cause at their convention, they are gonna want to stress the things that they can do well for the country, and not the war, which most americans think the republicans will fair better at.

i am interested to see how the report will affect how, and what they say?

bigjohn
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 05:14 PM
In reply to:


but, they see kerry as the better candidate at achieving financial stability, hence, an economic president




I find that so laughable. I know your not saying its your view.. but really, look at teh economy, its definitely on the upswing.

If Kerry/Edwards are elected, this last little "recession" will look like a walk in the park...
The 2 things Kerry has already said he's going to do within the first 100 days of his presidency:

1) Increasing taxes will lead to decreased comsummer spending, which then leads to reduced corporate profits, which then leads to layoffs.

2) Doubling the minimum wage will result in rampant inflation, which leads to decreased comsummer spending, which then leads to reduced corporate profits, which then leads to layoffs
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 05:23 PM
In reply to:

its definitely on the upswing.



yes it is.. CAUSE WE ARE IN A WAR!!

that is the ONLY reason the economy gives the impression of being "on the upswing".. economy always booms during war cause the republicans are padding their big business buddies pockets.

i dont see george w making the US the most hated country in the world, as a fair trade off to getting a low interest rate on my used truck loan. yea, i am buying, so are a lot of us, but it still doesnt warrant an unjust war.

bigjohn

Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 05:50 PM
Wow, bigjohn! Lots of very loose associations there. I'd love to see you play connect the dots with those.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 05:59 PM
even more interesting, is gonna be watching the democrats try and play connect the dots next week..

and i am not sure which comment you think is a "loose association".. i have a tendency to ramble, so try and be specific.. i think i did no worse than the "what ifs", and "how would's" that i have seen on this thread.

i am sure the convention next week will give us PLENTY to talk about!

bigjohn
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 06:10 PM
heeh nutshell, I couldnt DISagree more with above statement

Slap someone in teh face with good news and they still don't beleive it.


Posted By: sidvicious02 Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 06:14 PM
my apologies for hi-jacking an official hi-jack thread....

here's a news ditty about Stephen Hawking's new theory on black holes. You were correct Peter, doesn't look like they are quite as destructive as once thought, but I wouldn't plan a sight-seeing tour any time soon.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 06:20 PM
damn that totally ruin's some of the cooler episodes from Stargate SG-1

Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 06:50 PM
Loose association/generalizations-
#1:
"CAUSE WE ARE IN A WAR!!

that is the ONLY reason the economy gives the impression of being "on the upswing""

To prove that increased gov't spending regarding war costs is the only factor in the economic upswing would take many pages of argument - and would actually be impossible because it is simply not the only factor involved in the rebounding economy.

#2:
"economy always booms during war cause the republicans are padding their big business buddies pockets."

Most people seem to agree that wartime production increases result in a temporarily increased GNP, but the same effect could be achieved through investments in infrastructure or (gulp) increases in entitlement programs.
And I really, really believe that neither Bush nor any other high level elected official from either party would send American boys to their deaths to enrich their buddies. Profits could be increased for defense contractors by simply increasing military spending and stockpiling the stuff. No need to kill anybody.
Also, it's wrong to label the Republicans as the "war party". At other times the Democrats have been labeled the "war party" - Vietnam, WWII, etc...

#3:
"i dont see george w making the US the most hated country in the world, as a fair trade off to getting a low interest rate on my used truck loan."

We have been disliked for a long time. Many factors play into that. We have long been seen as culturally inferior to the European and Arab nations (in their eyes). Our success must make that even harder to bear.
Bush hasn't single handedly made us into the most hated country in the world, and I don't even think we are the most hated country in the world, but even if we are, who cares? Don't you guys all hate the Lakers and Yankees because they're always winning? Losers love to hate the winners.
And what in ternation does int'l opinion have to do with your truck loan?

#4:
"i am buying, so are a lot of us, but it still doesnt warrant an unjust war."

Not really a loose association, you're just implying that there is an increase in consumer confidence during a war. I've never heard that argued before.

I wasn't even going to post in this thread today, bigjohn!
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 06:54 PM
Great words there BigWill
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 07:08 PM
In reply to:

Slap someone in teh face with good news and they still don't beleive it



see, i could do the same to you with bad news, and you will still choose not to believe it.. ok, here we go..

our president is sending young americans to die in a war based on lies, and half truths.

george w makes everyone smile with his cash in hand tax break.. meanwhile, he hides the fact that the whole tax bill is to benefit the wealthy upper class, which only make up about 7% of the american population.

now, do you "believe" that slap??

bigjohn






Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 07:36 PM
In reply to:

I wasn't even going to post in this thread today, bigjohn




now bigwill.. you know that wasnt going to happen.. just like a republican, always in denial of the inevitable truth.

btw- i think i will stay away from this thread til next week.. there will be plenty more to say then..

ps- stay away from boston at all costs.. from what i have read, they are turning that town upside down.. and it will be worse in new york for the republican convention..

and lets all hope for one thing.. i dont want to be up til 5am on this years election night like i was on the last one 4 years ago.. for whoever wins, lets just hope it is decesive and uncontested! i dont think i could handle another flip-flop..

bigjohn
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 07:38 PM
In reply to:

ps- stay away from boston at all costs.. from what i have read, they are turning that town upside down




Unfortunately I live there. And yes, it will be mayhem.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 07:45 PM
I'm not trying to be facetious, or funny, or argumentative, bigjohn, but have you read Marx?

Here's a link to a very quick synopsis of the Communist Manifesto:

http://www.indepthinfo.com/communist-manifesto/synopsis.shtml

The Communist Manifesto itself is pretty easy reading as political philosophy goes. It leaves out all of the historical and philosophical rationale of Marx's other works and just presents the communist agenda as concisely as they could.

To analyze everything in terms of class conflict, rich vs. poor, IS Marxist philosophy.

To a great extent, it has permeated modern American thinking, affecting peoples' notions of what is "fair" and "unfair". I don't think most of us know it, though. I hear Marx in Disney movies, from Dan Rather, the local news, sitcoms, editorials, letters to the editor, etc... every day.
Posted By: sidvicious02 Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 08:02 PM
ok....at the risk of taking sides or getting caught up in the politics thread (which is the most civil political discussion I have ever seen, kudos to all), I just want to wage in with one point.

Everyone says Saddam wasn't a threat to the US or the rest of the world. But my question is, what about his own people? No one ever really talks about what he did in that country and that to me, is the real crime. He butchered 1,000,000 of his own people for crying out loud - and people have the gall to say he didn't deserve to be removed!?! That makes me want to jump up and slap the person. It's a shame he wasn't removed earlier (and no need to repeat that Saddam was installed by the US - that's not the point).

I have travelled in Cambodia, walked through the killing fields and toured S-21. I've seen the emotional carnage that was brought to those people - the look of horror on their faces when you say the name Pol Pot. Saddam Hussein will undoubtedly leave similar physical and emotional scars on the Iraqi people that will take generations to heal.

For anyone that said the Iraq war was unjustified, I ask you, how many people does a dictator have to slaughter for it to become justified? Ten thousand? One Hundred thousand? Five Hundred thousand? A million? My god, Clinton went into to Yugoslavia to remove Slobodan and everyone thought he was a hero. Last tally I heard was Milosovic killed less than 1/4 the number of people Saddam did. Forgive my passion, but what the hell is wrong with this picture????????
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 09:19 PM
In reply to:


now, do you "believe" that slap??




Well no actually, because there is no proof of that.

There is proof the economy is on the rebound, stock market is up, jobs ARE being created. All the while inflation is low. Remarkable, its a shame you can't see that.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 09:28 PM
In reply to:

what the hell is wrong with this picture????????


I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with it.

The majority of the killing was done with weapons sold to Saddam by none other than the good 'ol U.S.A. That makes our gov't an enabler to the massacres. Nice foreign policy, eh?

Sure, he deserved to be taken out. Why did we prop him up to begin with?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 09:34 PM
In reply to:

There is proof the economy is on the rebound, stock market is up, jobs ARE being created. All the while inflation is low. Remarkable, its a shame you can't see that



i can see that just fine inane.. but all that is true, due to the war.. the war based on lies and half truths..

what we have here is, failure to communicate!!

my head is hurting from us banging them together

bigjohn
Posted By: sidvicious02 Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 09:37 PM
exactly my point...so why are people beating up George Bush over this? He correct an old wrong. (oh and I'm pretty sure Saddam would have killed those innocent people whether he had American weapons or not - doesn't make it right, but it is so).
Posted By: les9596 Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 10:35 PM
SOAPBOX RANT=100% ALIGN RIGHT
It seems to me that everyone talks about how we did it for the wrong reason (Bush lied, people died), or we did it badly (Abu Gahrab), or that we did it to no good effect (quagmire!) All this, I think, is not only debatable, but misses the really important point.

Which is simply and powerfully that we did it. We changed reality. Whatever may happen, Saddam’s family will never rule Iraq again.

All the side issues we distract ourselves with are all about us, here in the West. Our goals. Our sins. Most often, our fears. But the real point of invasion always was and still is the people of Iraq. Their freedom, not our safety, is the prize today. Watch them, not us, because at this precise moment in history, they have a chance at real democracy.

Yes, they might fail. They’ve got little infrastructure to work with. Yes, we certainly could have given them a better start by doing better with the occupation. Yes, their history of sectarian violence might poison their efforts. But however many mistakes we made, however slim their chance, however “unfit” for democracy some judge them to be, they’ve at least got this chance.

Twenty five MILLION people have a chance.

It cost a thousand American lives. It will certainly end up costing many more Iraqi lives. And it all might end horribly. Or it might spread freedom throughout the Middle East. Who will stand up and say their chance wasn’t worth our sacrifice?

In fact, many people and nations did and continue to do just that. But that's a soapbox rant for another day.
/SOAPBOX

Posted By: Ken.C Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 11:10 PM
You know what? I don't object to Saddam being gone. I don't object to trying to start a democracy there. What I object to is this:

1. Preemption. We change the doctrine of the last x amount of years by hitting first.

2. Unilateralism. We don't wait for the proper process to happen. The UN was headed our way, it just would have taken a little while. Yeah, yeah, how many more would die, but still. Procedures should be followed, or we should pull out of the UN, and cause even more people to hate us.

3. We were lied to. We are still lied to. The revisionism is amazing. Now our primary motivation for going into Iraq was to remove Saddam. A year ago, our primary motivation was because of the "WMD."

4. WMD. Since when does everything need to be an acronym?!

5. A lack of a plan for the peace. Sure we won the war. Uh, now what? Let's make it up!

6. The War on Terror. Uh, what happened to Osama? Good lord, we're pulling people out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq!

7. North Korea. They've got ICBMs and Nukes. They've said so. We know it. They're irrational as hell. You know why we're not touching them? 'Cause under the Bush doctrine, they should be little piles of radioactive ash.

In short, I don't trust this administration to be making these kinds of decisions.

On the economy thing, here's something that will anger both sides. The President has almost nothing to do with the current economy. Clinton got lucky. Bush got unlucky, and he's starting to get a little lucky. We'll see what happens when the deficits come back to bite President Schwarzenegger. Or President Edwards.
Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 11:29 PM
In reply to:

We'll see what happens when the deficits come back to bite President Schwarzenegger.

I don't think you will ever see Arnold as President.You have to be a natural born citizen.

Posted By: Ken.C Re: OT: politics - 07/23/04 11:37 PM
You forget the Constitutional Amendment! That's outdated... obviously we need to get rid of that part of the Constitution.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 12:21 AM
Les9596, that was excellent. I'm proud of that post and I had nothing to do with it.

"3. We were lied to. We are still lied to. The revisionism is amazing. Now our primary motivation for going into Iraq was to remove Saddam. A year ago, our primary motivation was because of the "WMD.""

kcarlie, you're obviously just funnin' us now, right?

I think that many people selectively remember only the WMD aspect of that speech Bush gave prior to the invasion of Iraq. The Democrats and the media have helped reinforce that false impression. If you press me, I'm sure I can google up the text of that speech.

Posted By: Ken.C Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 12:23 AM
Let me add another number:

An amazing unwillingness to admit a mistake!

You're probably right on number 3. But the emphasis shifted...
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 12:28 AM
Ba'athism is Arab National Socialism - it is Nazism. We cleaned up that scourge against humanity in Europe. I'm a lifelong democrat, but I'll admit that Bush did what needed to be done. If anyone thinks absolutely criminal regimes like the Ba'athist malignancy in Iraq has any legitimacy, they are either out of touch with reality, or moral imbeciles.

Adam, if you think a democratic Israel is a threat to the United States, I'd like you to share your reasoning with us. Seems to me, the only way Israel is a threat to the US is if the UN permits the Arabs to exterminate Israel's Jewish population and make Israel another Muslim country.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 12:43 AM
KC, United States' policy has, since 1947, always acknowledged that preemption was our national policy vis a vis the Soviet Union and China. The United States never agreed to sign any treaty by which we would renounce first use of nuclear weapons.

Please, take a look at what's happening in this world. Please explain how the world permits the genocide in Rwanda, or the current genocide in Somalia, or what the Ba'athist malignancy did in Iraq? Will the UN do anything about the genocidal anarchy of the Muslim south Sahara region? You can count on not only the impotence of the UN to do anything about Somalia, after all it is an Arab genocide and there are over 80 Islamic nations represented in the UN, but a UN which appears only offended by the policies of Israel or the United States.

This country can stick its head in the sand, like France, but if we do, we'll still be the target of an international war of Jihad which is being waged against us.

Do you think that we are being attacked because Muslims don't like our policies? Well, that's what war is about!

If you want to concede control of our policies to any extra-national group willing to fly jetliners into our buildings, or blow up our ships, or release pathogens in our cities, or poison our water, then you have declared the terrorists winners and conceded our sovereignty.

If you think that our sovereignty is equivalent to the sovereignty of malignant criminal regimes like the Ba'athists in Iraq, or the genocidal anarchy that is Somalia, then you're crippled by a moral relativism which concedes there is no morality, or which acknowledges that there is no difference between immorality and morality.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 02:02 AM
2x6, you don't sound like a Democrat - though all those pictures of you, the Clintons and Gore rubbing elbows leaves little room for doubt. LOL


Posted By: KC_Mike Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 04:37 AM
The UN was headed our way??? Um...I don't think so. For one, some of those countries had much to hide. For example, banned materials/products (including weapons) they were selling to Iraq in secret..against the UN resolution they signed.

Look, Iraq was big business to many of these countries and they didn't want that money flow to stop. I think the unraveling oil-for-food scandal is just another example of this.


Posted By: jtmccoy Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 06:56 AM
Okay, it's a bit a late, so this may not make an ounce of sense, but here's my somewhat off-the-wall take on Bush and his approach to the Iraq situation (just try to hang with me here):

Let's say Bush wants to get from point A to point B, so he decides to build a car. Fine, that makes sense--can't really argue with him there. Now, Bush has never built a car before. However, people who have built cars before advise him that he's going to need various types of metal alloys, rubber, and plastic and a team of good engineers and mechanics to fit it all together, plus a lot of gasoline. "Screw that," Bush says, "that sounds waaaaay too complicated." Nope, Bush just has a "gut feeling" that even though he's never built a car, never driven a car, in fact can't even pronounce "Saab" correctly, that he knows how to build a car. He has some good (i.e. wealthy beyond all imagination) friends who own a bakery, so he decides to give them the business and build his car out of doughnuts and frosting instead. "Besides," Bush figures, "it's a long trip, and if I should get a hankerin' for some grub, I can just take a bite out of my neat little doughnut-car." And, well, lo and behold, the damn thing just don't work. Go figure.

Okay, so like I said, it's a bit late.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 07:05 AM
In reply to:

But the real point of invasion always was and still is the people of Iraq.




No disrespect intended, but - bullshit. It could possibly be the greatest benefit of the war (only time will tell), but it definitely wasn't the main reason for the war. Otherwise the Bush administration would've been saying so from the get-go. Instead it was "imminent threat" and "weapons of mass destruction" and "ties to Al Qaeda" - and then FINALLY when all those weren't enough it became the Operation Iraqi Freedom we all know and love today.

This never was and never will be a primarily humanitarian mission. The US needed to gain another stronghold in the region, and in the process conveniently depose of someone who'd worn out his welcome. The fate of the Iraqi people is and always has been completely secondary to the benefit of gaining more control in the area and also gaining more control over the flow of oil. Let's face it, if the Middle East wasn't the huge oil producing region it is, we wouldn't have much of an interest in the place. What happened after we toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan? Haliburton and Chevron got their wet dream of finally being able to build a pipeline through the country. Installing a US-friendly Iraqi government in a country sitting on a huge oil reserve was I'm sure more on the minds of the administration than the livelihood of the people inhabiting the country.

Now let's say that saving the people of Iraq from a cruel dictator was the main reason for the war. There is a problem with that angle. And that problem is Africa. Whether by massacres and genocide, disease and epidemics (AIDS), cruel dictatorships or just plain malnutrition, the state of living for the average African is far more dire than the average Iraqi. Take Rwanda. The Congo. Sudan (hey, if we're going to right a wrong, how about we build a new pharmaceutical plant to replace the one we blew up, so the Sudanese people can receive treatment for various diseases, like TB, at a price they can actually afford, rather than dying by the thousands from treatable diseases). Anyway, my point is, the US has never been altruistic when it comes to using it's might. And though there are millions of Africans truly struggling for survival every day, who are far more deserving of a better way of life than those whose main struggle is for rights and not survival , they are denied that chance because they have little to offer the US in return.

If Iraq was not sitting on top of oil and not in the hotbed that is the Middle East, and if Saddam was just as cruel, no, if he were twice as cruel, we would not have invaded, plain and simple.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 08:57 AM
Adam, the US cannot feed the world.

Why is Africa such a mess? Corruption, religious war - jihad for Sharia in Niger, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, and on and on. Iraq was a threat, the sanction regime was breaking down thanks the the French, Russians and Germans, and if the Ba'athists had the full flow of oil revenues, do you doubt they would have had an armory of WMD?

I think the idea of democratizing Iraq is farcical, but at least the Ba'athists are out of power.

You think the US is not motivated by altruism? Why did we go into Somalia under Clinton? You may have forgotten but it was because of the famine and all those babies with distended bellies and flies feeding off their eyes. We went in with food and they hacked our guys to pieces. Why? Because our guys were Christian and the fattest part of the bell curve of the distribution of normative values in that part of the world is Jihad coupled with the governmental system of repose in that part of the world - warlordism.

You may see yourself as a highly evolved, tolerant and loving person, and figure that everyone else would be the same if their bellies were full. That is a materialist delusion which does not give religious fanaticism its due.

There's evil in the world, it's at war with us. Take a stand. Tolerance is the hallmark of liberalism, but tolerance of evil is folly.


Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 11:14 AM
I wasn't aware that I was taking the stance of tolerating evil. If anything, I'm speaking out against the tolerance of evil if it's in a part of the world we're not interested in.
Posted By: twodan19 Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 11:36 AM
keeping quite to this point--maybe we propped him for the same reason people buy bose, easy, and best uninformed choice at the time?
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 01:34 PM
Ok... I've been laying low for a while because of what I perceived as a complete lack of civil discourse and tolerance for people who have a different opinion. I am a Republican, and I really resent being labelled racist, homo-whatever, hate the poor, intolerant, etc... I am none of those things. Since THIS discussion seems to be one in which we can freely express our opinions without getting flamed, I'll toss in my .02 on a few topics. KC listed them out, so I'm going to rip him off

1. Preemption. We change the doctrine of the last x amount of years by hitting first.

BigWill listed MOST of the prior attacks on us that have been going on since 1970. Exactly how many times does one need to be attacked before retaliation is not considered "preemption". They took shots at us for years, and we did nothing. If we had attacked back in 1960, then THAT would have been preemption.

2. Unilateralism. We don't wait for the proper process to happen. The UN was headed our way, it just would have taken a little while. Yeah, yeah, how many more would die, but still. Procedures should be followed, or we should pull out of the UN, and cause even more people to hate us.

The UN was NEVER going to "head our way". 2 points here. #1, the UN supported Gulf War. Saddam signed a cease fire agreement that provided for unlimited inspections. If he really had none, he would have let us look anywhere and everywhere that we wanted. Nothing to hide, right? He didn't. When hostilities resumed after the violation of the cease fire agreement, the original (UN approved) Gulf War started up again, correct? Sounds legal enough to me.

Second, individuals in the French, German, and Russian governments were receiving kickbacks from Saddam and the oil for food program. As long as Saddam had a lock on Iraq, those people were guaranteed a supply of free money. They were NEVER going to vote to remove him. He could have killed 3 million more people on camera, and they would not have voted to remove him. The UN is corrupt, period. We should not trust the destiny of the American people to them.

3. We were lied to. We are still lied to. The revisionism is amazing. Now our primary motivation for going into Iraq was to remove Saddam. A year ago, our primary motivation was because of the "WMD."

We were not lied to. Every intelligence agency in the world knows Saddam had, used, and was still developing other WMDs. They were there. Sooner or later, they will turn up. He had plenty of time to hide, or move the ones he had before we rolled in. Maybe the UN called him, and told him that they couldn't stall the US any longer? Another point. Given the desire of about 50% of the American population to be politically correct at all times, the President can't simply come on TV, say "Saddam violated the cease fire agreement, leaders all over the world are being bought off, and oh by the way, we need to go hunt down and kill these radical Islamists wherever and whenever we can.". The liberal press would have a field day with that. I listen to what Bush said prior to the war. If you heard anything other than what I just typed in quotes when you listened to him, then you just missed his point. The story was the same, beginning to end. It's just hard to put that in a sentence that meets the PC standard. He said the same thing, with the same intention repeatedly. It was clear as a bell, just as I typed it, and it never changed.

4. WMD. Since when does everything need to be an acronym?!

I agree. WTF?

5. A lack of a plan for the peace. Sure we won the war. Uh, now what? Let's make it up!

Uh, lets apply this to the fire department. "Uh... we're sorry sir, we can't come out there and put that fire out at your house because the architect hasn't called us with the new floor plans yet." Basic rules of emergencies. Handle the situation at hand first, then deal with the aftermath. Basic rules of business. Avoid "analysis paralysis". Do not spend so much time analyzing that the opportunity you were examining passes you by. Bush's plan for peace was simple. Take out the dictator. Stop shooting. Leave.

6. The War on Terror. Uh, what happened to Osama? Good lord, we're pulling people out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq!

Did you notice that we stompped all over Afghanistan, and not one peep from the radical Islamic community. We went into Iraq, and they're coming out of the woodwork. Maybe we struck a nerve? Based on their reaction alone, I'd say we're getting warmer. We've plucked a nerve to be sure. We MUST be doing something right.

7. North Korea. They've got ICBMs and Nukes. They've said so. We know it. They're irrational as hell. You know why we're not touching them? 'Cause under the Bush doctrine, they should be little piles of radioactive ash.

It worked with the Soviet Union. Now our President does lunch with their President. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 01:43 PM
In reply to:

2x6, you don't sound like a Democrat - though all those pictures of you, the Clintons and Gore rubbing elbows leaves little room for doubt. LOL




I just hope he took a shower afterwards!
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 05:19 PM
Adam wrote:

"I wasn't aware that I was taking the stance of tolerating evil. If anything, I'm speaking out against the tolerance of evil if it's in a part of the world we're not interested in."

Hello Adam

I think the point is the US cannot right every wrong in the world. We have to be guided in our conduct by our national interest and threats to our national interest. The US gives billions of dollars in food and credits to the world. A non trivial percentage of our largesse is stolen by corrupt elites, much is then sold rather than given to starving people. International food aid to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, IRAQ, are cases in point. The US couldn't really intervene militarily in Rwanda because there are no effective regional cooperative groups and how were we supposed to project force to Rwanda surrounded by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda? How come Rwanda's neighbors tolerated the murder of hundreds of thousands of Tutsies by Hutus? Why do you fault US intervention in Iraq and fault us for not intervening in Rwanda?

How about Somalia? We went in to save that region from anarchy, systematic murder, rape, and starvation, and our soldiers were attacked and hacked to pieces. Why? Because it's better to starve than be humiliated by the infidel Christians.

It's a weird world and many hate the US not for the reasons you find to criticize our society, but because of our religions and secular society.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/24/04 09:50 PM
Man, I absolutely love this post!

Been away for a while, so I wanted to pick and choose a few things to take shots at:

1. "i dont think i could handle another flip-flop.." Bigjohn - If you can't handle another flip-flop election, how are you going to handle 4 years of flip-flops?....So far, that is Kerry's modus operandus, so it's fair to assume that we should expect that from a Kerry/Edwards administration. "I voted for the $87 Billion before I voted against it."

2. kcarlile - You already took a beating over your statements about the UN "coming around" and staying within procedures, but I have to hit you up on that one too. You REALLY need to rethink your stance on the motivations and credibility of the UN. The corrupt and self-serving actions of the major powers within the UN have been exposed for all to see. Their credibility is severely damaged after 10 years of being defied without repercussion. Over time, their role in these different scandals will further damage their credibility. The UN has never acted in the best interest of the US. US interests cannot be their only driver, but they have an obligation not to act in direct opposition to the interests of one of it's largest members and by far the largest contributor. Everyone wants to have this utopia with a unified governing body that maintains the peace between nations, but people need to reconsider their views of the UN being this body. They have done absolutely NOTHING to deserve that level of respect from us.

3. 2X6, you are definitely the local scholar on affairs in Africa. I will definitely admit my ignorance in that arena.

4. jtmccoy - You REALLY have to avoid posting that late at night.

5. Adam - You have swallowed the left conspiracy theory hook, line, and sinker. Do you truly think that we are going to come out of this with some kind of unending supply of oil? Yes, we might come out of this with a good trade partner once the country settles down. But, as we ALWAYS do, the US will leave Iraq a sovereign nation free to do with their oil what they see fit. The only ones with blatant interests in hijacking their oil are the UN members, who are very pissed off that we busted up their party.

6. I'm kind of getting tired with the whole dialog about why we didn't attack such and such banter. The only reason we outright invaded Iraq is because we had permission. However much no one wants to believe it, the UN resolutions gave us the permission to enforce the consequences of Iraq's defiance. Given the evidence we had at the time of Iraq's thread, along with the existing UN resolutions, the US made a choice to finally enforce the resolutions of the impotent UN....something that was long over-due.

We all need to face it; we did it because we could. We would love to beat the crap out of all of the dysfuntional regimes out there, but it's not practical.

7. As a final note, I want to throw out another thought. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about this crap about Bush not winning the election. That seems to pop up a lot when a Democrat gets really wired up and wants to scream about Bush. The problem is the fact that they're wrong. Studies following the election show that Gore would NOT have won based upon ALL of the different recount variations that he requested in his lawsuit.

That issue may seem a bit arbitrary, but it was on my mind. I like the Beasties Boys, but their recent cd has numerous songs bitching about Bush, including statements about him not being elected by us.

OK....that's my 2 cents.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 07/25/04 12:30 AM
Adam wrote:

In reply to:

Now let's say that saving the people of Iraq from a cruel dictator was the main reason for the war. There is a problem with that angle. And that problem is Africa. Whether by massacres and genocide, disease and epidemics (AIDS), cruel dictatorships or just plain malnutrition, the state of living for the average African is far more dire than the average Iraqi. Take Rwanda. The Congo. Sudan (hey, if we're going to right a wrong, how about we build a new pharmaceutical plant to replace the one we blew up, so the Sudanese people can receive treatment for various diseases, like TB, at a price they can actually afford, rather than dying by the thousands from treatable diseases). Anyway, my point is, the US has never been altruistic when it comes to using it's might. And though there are millions of Africans truly struggling for survival every day, who are far more deserving of a better way of life than those whose main struggle is for rights and not survival , they are denied that chance because they have little to offer the US in return.




We are not denying anyone in Africa their "chance" for survival. We are not responsible for one genocidal, corrupt regime after another which marks the governments of Africa. The US gives an enormous amount of food aid. We cannot stop the local despots from stealing a non trivial portion of that aid. We are not responsible for the AIDS epidemic in Africa. African governments reject Western pharmaceuticals for the treatment of AIDS because their party-line is that AIDS is not caused by a virus. Kenya is the exception and has an effective abstinence program. The conventional wisdom in Africa is that if a man contracts AIDS he should have sex with a young virgin. As you might expect, rape is simultaneously rampant and ineffective as a treatment. Muslim populations in Africa refuse polio and measles vaccines because their wise men tell them these vaccines are part of Jewish plot to cause infertility among Muslim men thereby depriving them of their "demographic weapon."

It's about time people take responsibility for their own lots. I don't know how a peaceful person can deal with warlords and their "technicals" children armed with AK47s and Toyota 4wd pick up trucks mounting 20 caliber machine guns, but that's the world of sub Saharan Africa. Why don't you expect Saudi Arabia, a neighbor to use some of their petro dollars to help people? All their "aid" is funding for Islamic centers which propagate the Wahabi Jihadist philosophy and terror. Israel gives more aid to Africa than Saudi Arabia which is swimming in enormous petro wealth.

You want the US to deal with the abomination of North Korea? Fine, convince the South Koreans that we should do that, or do you want us to act unilaterally in the Korean peninsula?

Forgive me for saying, but your comments appear to be well meaning but confused and based on misperceptions of global, regional and local realities.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/25/04 01:25 AM
I've been staying out of this one lately but still following it because honestly, you're all in over my head as far as my knowledge of what goes on out there in the world goes(especially you with the Africa stuff 2x6). However, I would like to say that this has to be one of the most interesting threads I have read on here in a while. Maybe I am just starting to get tired of the which speaker should I get, the M22 or the M60 threads
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/25/04 04:24 AM
I enjoy this thread. Kudos to everyone for being at least somewhat civil. I've only needed to apologize once.

3rd World poverty, epidemics, dysfunctional economies/gov'ts, brutal tribal violence, etc... is tragic. And we also have great suffering here at home.

Solutions appear hard to come by there. Adam Smith would suggest that eventually all the world will have their lots lifted as economic progress continues, but most folks seem to dislike the MNCs and their involvement in the 3rd World.
Posted By: jtmccoy Re: OT: politics - 07/25/04 11:47 PM
Turbodog,

What, you don't think if Kerry used my masterful "Bush and his doughnut car" analogy in his speeches, he would win the election in a landslide?!

Okay, yeah, you're right...no more posting at 3am for me.
-JT
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/26/04 04:40 AM
I want to change up a little...

I am pro Bush but I will list the things I believe he is wrong about.

1) Homeland security: Yup, not enough is/has been done. Perhaps the miiiiiiiiiiiiles of red tape that average joe doesn't know about it keeping him from changing much but I think the 911 commision had some good points about how we ARE going to be attacked again. I've heard lots of good ideas on what needs to be done. Government bureaucracy is going to ruin the day once again, perhaps the Libertarians are right on some things... There is NO reason the national guard isn't patroling BOTH our borders. And then there is the whole port authority inspection process.

2) Perscription Bill: Good intentions, bad implimentation. It's just more overhead stacked onto a failing social security. I will conceed I believe this was done to help in his relection (he is a politician afterall )

3) Amneisty. I just think its a bad idea to reward ppl for breaking the law, what's going on in cali is laughable (the laws they are trying to pass in some areas). The whole *we need ppl to take jobs ppl don't want* is just a bad arguement. By saying that you are advocating an ACTUAL lowerthanlow class.

4) Constitution Amendment. The gay marriage issue is just not something that needs to be stamped into the constitution ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. That is totally a social issue that needs to be worked out amoungst our nation. Personally I have not yet worked up an opinion to that issue.

5) Spending. I'm not against funding things that need to be funded but we NEED smaller government. Perhaps this moment in history is just not a good time to stand by those principles, I donno. One could equate it to objecting to military spending during ~1943, sometimes you just have to do something.

6) etc, I know there is prolly more I just can't think of it right now.

That said, I still believe THIS President is honorable and doing an overall FINE job.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/26/04 11:33 AM
I'm somewhere in the middle, but I'm glad to see someone that is pro Bush admit he is wrong about some things. A lot of pro Bush people seem to think you agree with everything as he does or you are a Dem, Anti-american, etc. No matter which side you fall on, people need to be able to think for themselves instead of just blindly agreeing with everything their party leader says.

My biggest with Bush is the spending. We likely need to raise taxes ( a little) and cut spending ( a lot) in order to a surplus and starting paying off our enormous debt. Any business would have been bankrupt a long time ago.

I realize this is not just Bush and it has been going on for a long time. The budget thing they had that forced balanced spending (add some here, take away from here) that ended in 2002 ( I believe) was a good start in that direction, but it has ended under Bush.

As long as I don't think they are a complete moron on other issues, my vote goes to the guy that will start putting a plan in place to fix the deficit. We're throwing money away on interest and debt, whereas if there was an overall surplus (I know, it will take a long time) we could actually be getting some interest and having extra money from that to put into things.

People and businesses must have a surplus (in the long run) to survive and not go bankrupt...why not govt?
Posted By: FordPrefect Re: OT: politics - 07/26/04 01:56 PM
Getting a little off topic.....

Our local tv station ran a bit on how Americans living in Canada are being urged (by other Americans) to register for the vote. The feeling is that if it's a close election their votes can make a difference.

Apparently there are about 600,000 living here. I think that represents more votes than the state of Wyoming or Montana.


Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 07/26/04 02:12 PM
Zarak and Inane,

I agree completely. As a matter of fact, when the polls show that Bush's approval is falling, I believe it. The reason? Republicans like us that do not like SOME of the things that he has done. My points of contention are:

1) - Security & imigration. To me, these are one and the same. No freaking amnesty. Every time the police arrest anyone, they should verify citizenship. If you don't have the paperwork saying you belong here or do not have a valid visa, then we should immediately take your behind to the US border that faces the direction you need to go, and toss you out. No stop home for clothes, no nothing. Gone. On the spot deportation. If you wanna be here, fill out the friggin paperwork. Note, this issue is also one that the Dems try to paint us as racist on. I'll clarify. I don't give a damn if you are from Mexico, Norway, Australia, France, Germany, Iran, whatever. What I'm talking about applies to everyone. No racist undertones about it. You are WELCOME here if you fill in the paperwork, and we say it's OK to be here.

2 - Spending. WTF? I know the last election was close, and he is trying to win over a few center-left folks for this time around, but come on! He let Ted (burp) Kennedy write the education bill. That thing is a virtual botttomless pit of money. ( Then he lets himself get kicked in the head every day for over 3 years by the DNC saying he cut spending(?). AND HE WON'T FIGHT BACK! Arggggh! )

3 - Aw, shoot. You get the point. There are more.

The important thing for the Dems to remember is that even though a LOT of us that support W are not 100% perfectly happy with him. If I was polled tomorrow, I would probably give him a low approval rating. A large portion of Bush's low approval rating is the fact that his own base thinks he's not far enough to the right. Thay being said, my choices are to vote for him in November or to vote for Joh... whoaaa!!! what am I saying? Stop. Rewind. It's either vote for Bush, or write in Mickey Mouse.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/26/04 06:21 PM
I would have to agree with just about everything you guys just said. Bush knows his conservative base will vote for him in Novemeber, so he gives voters the appearance of moving left to attract more moderates. Same with Kerry, he knows the left will vote for him so he's been trying to move right a little to get the moderates, as well.

One other Bush complaint. Before 9-11 his biggest issue seemed to be the faith-based social services thing. I think the country would benefit from a return to individual responsibility, strong family values, and caring communities, but funding churches so that they can dispense welfare will not fly with the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Constitution.

Regarding deficits, nowhere are the problems more clear than in California's current dilemna. During a recent period of economic boom the state gov't filled their coffers to a record surplus. The amateurs in the legislature and the pansy in the governors office increased spending like nobody's business. Economic boom ended, tax revenues plummeted, and now it's either raise taxes or cut spending (or put it on a credit card, which is what is most likely to happen ).

IMO, the key to increasing tax revenues is increasing economic activity and production. To make it through inevitable periods of contraction or stagnation, the gov't needs to spend prudently during good times and bad. Some deficit spending won't hurt during those lean times, but sheesh! Arnold has been unable to cut spending anywhere without special interests rallying the media into a frenzy.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/26/04 10:56 PM
I've been enjoying this thread immensely, especially since TurboDog graced us with that rather large brain dump many many posts ago.

While many of my opinions are still on the liberal side of the equation, I've read enough from the flip-side (no, not the flip-flop side) to give me a reason to re-evaluate my stance.

I've always been a moderate at heart and believe that both sides have valid ideas to offer. It's great to see this thread serving as an example that real political debate is possible -- and can be fruitful, as well. It should be required reading for Congress.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 07/26/04 11:05 PM
Hi BigWill

Must respectfully disagree about the California deficit. We had a surplus of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS - every penny of which was LOOTED by Enron, El Paso Natural Gas, etc. I think the oil companies did the same thing on a national scale - they stole the tax refund by increasing prices - their profits have gone up, your wallet thickness has gone down and there's no reason for it but greed.

Market manipulations corrupt the operation of a free market.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/26/04 11:27 PM
I just came across a great article that might have you seeing cross-eyed for a bit. (His main point is that Bush is the liberal and Kerry is the conservative.)

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/print.php?artnum=20040725

Opinions?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/26/04 11:57 PM
I guess my 13% raise was imaginary?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 12:10 AM
WHAT?? So even teachers are stealing money from the poor??

j/k. Sweet. It's good to know some things are going well. Did all teachers with good performance records get raises, or just the ones who intimidate their bosses?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 12:15 AM
"Kerry insists that he is a fiscal conservative, aiming to reduce the deficit by tax increases."

That statement in the article made no sense. Fiscal conservative would cut spending.

He does have some good points, but protectionist tariffs for the steel industry could be construed as vital for nat'l security. Same goes for the pre-emptive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It does appear, though, that he is on to something when he says Bush does not favor strong states' rights. Never noticed that.

"Radical jurists" being appointed to the bench? From what I have distilled from the local paper, the appointments only look radical to the far left. Maybe 2x6 or JohnK know more about that?

Regardless, a few conservative judges will hardly be sufficient to counter to the huge number of judicial-activist hippies that have been appointed in the past (can you say "9th Circuit Court of Appeals"?).


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 12:29 AM
Well, I try not to intimidate the boss, but he does seem to leave me alone. That's good.

Even non-Union district gave their teachers substantial raises. It also meant that the janitors, secretaries, administrators, etc... all got "me-too" raises. Many custodians make more than the young teachers.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 12:48 AM
600,000 ?

When are you guys gonna run those slacker yankees out of there? Take them to the egde of one of the Great Lakes, and give them a shove in our direction !!!

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 01:57 AM
Just a few comments on some of the recent dialog and that article:

Yes, Bush has absolutely strayed far from many traditional conservative views that he preached when trying to get into that office. The biggest area where this has manifested itself is in his spending. The Bush administration is spending us into oblivion, just like a Democratic president. The root of this problem is the fact that, just like any good politician, Bush has decided to prostitute the American taxpayers to get himself reelected. A prime example of this is that prescription drug benefit. This bill was a completely careless blanket piece of legislation aimed solely to capture that evergroing elderly vote...an appeal to their apparent sense of entitlement. Yes, I will admit that there are many elderly that need assistance with their medication...don't they call that Medicare? Regardless, this bill gives every elderly member of society access to this benefit, regardless of his or her financial status....UTTERLY CARELESS PANDERING!!!!

As others have stated, I may presently support Bush for reelection, but it's not a blanket support. If you gave me a valid candidate who is tough on defense and fiscally conservative (like JFK), I'd be the first in line to vote for him/her. The problem is that the Democratic party has gone so far left of it's original roots that it's alienated those of us moderates that once counted themselves in the ranks of the libs.

Along the above line of reasoning, those from both sides of the fence should consider reading Zell Miller's book - A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat. If you put aside the Democratic Party line about Miller being a Republican in disguise, you'll read some interesting things. In his book, you will see admiration for the likes of JFK and Clinton, presidents that he views as true old-school democrats. You'll also see what you can find when you pull back the curtains on a political party. Both parties are to some degree in the pocket of outside groups. Miller gives you a glimpse of how that influence manifests itself.

While I'm being a literary promoter, you guys should consider reading a book by John Stossel - Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media. It's a great book about many different issues and the role the media plays in those problems. He has been pigeonholed by his peers because he has dared to examine the way that the media often makes things worse. Regardless, it's a worthy read for both liberal and conservative alike. The only problem is that it really shows you how absolutely screwed up things are and how little we can do to fix it.

OK, back on topic....."Kerry insists that he is a fiscal conservative, aiming to reduce the deficit by tax increases". This alone proves that Kerry doesn't have a clue about fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatives realize that the government does not create wealth and prosperity. The role of government is to protect us as a nation and to protect the rights and liberties of individuals. Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of the federal government. When you take that view of government, you see that our government is a spending menace, which is beyond out of control. The only way to cure this is to cut both taxes and spending simultaneously. To do so, we need a politician with the balls to truly stir up the system with real reform in mind. Unfortunately, I don't see anyone out there in the political arena that fits that bill....and I'm not holding my breath for it (jaded, but realistic).

Kerry can talk a good game about conservative spending, but his record does not indicate this type of philosophy. Kerry is part of this bloated government animal that views the government as the all-knowing all-important vessel charged with saving the American people from having to take any semblance of responsibility for their own lives.

So, in the end, we have a Republican president that has no clue about true fiscal conservatism, but is quite willing to take on that primary government function of protecting the American people. On the other side, we have a Democratic challenger that melds his platform to fit the views of his audience....a challenger that is so concerned with international opinion that he is willing to cow-tow to a international body that serves it's own interests and not those of the United States....a challenger that is vocal about his belief that government is the solution to all problems...a challenger that wants to increase taxes.

Come Election Day, I may think Bush is a moron politician, but he is the better of two evils, because he is going to continue to stay on the offensive in this war on terror. Kerry wants to continue with a more defensive approach, which may sound good.....at least until the next terrorist attack that levels a US city and kill millions of Americans. This is not a time for an American president that wants to return to the status quo. We did that in the late 90's and then got kicked in the balls on 9/11.

Man, I can't post a short response, can I? I guess I just get going when I see a chance to vent.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 03:59 AM
But your posts are always some of the best, so we don't mind.



Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 04:03 AM
2x6, I'm sure the energy "crisis" didn't help, but I just looked at the budget numbers for this year (I'm sure past budgets look similar).
The state plans to spend $40 billion on Education (K-12 & higher ed. combined) and $25 billion on Health and Human Services. If I remember correctly, the total budget was along the lines of $76 billion. That doesn't leave much room for anything else. Whatever Davis pissed away on those energy contracts, it is a pittance compared to the above numbers.

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 10:28 PM
OK...Did you guys think that I was going to let this thread just fade away?...No way!

Anyone watch the DNC? Clinton kicked butt, as usual. No matter what you think of his politics, he can really energize a room. No wonder they put him on the first day...need a little breathing room between him and Kerry. Kerry will be the lullaby at the end.

Too bad Gore took his prozak. I was hoping to see another one of his evangelical tyrades. That part must have ended up on the Kerry camp cutting room floor. Too bad.


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 10:43 PM
i agree. clinton is the man at giving speeches. i swear, that guy could sell a freezer to an eskimo living in an igloo on the north pole. he just has something about him when he talks.

and NO MORE, GOREO!!! geez louise, did he have to suck-face on tipper like that?? i was about to toss my dinner!! thats about enough of that.

all in all, good first day.. i could have done without hillary.. she needs to take some ques from her husband.. she is too mono-tone.. she kinda souns like she is whinning the whole time.. funny thing is.. she really hopes, deep down, that george w will win the election, so she will be set up as the 2008 demo candidate.. whatcha think about them apples??

bigjohn
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 10:50 PM
Putting aside her politics....do you think the country is ready for a female president by 2008?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 10:54 PM
nope, but we will see..

bigjohn
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 07/27/04 11:42 PM
Hmmm... I like this thread. Politics shouldn't be a topic to be avoided. Without open dialog, all you know about the other side's position is what your party tells you. They ARE trying to influence your decision, you know. What they say may not be exactly correct.

Turbodog said it. I'd pick Zell Miller over Bush, Kerry, or just about everyone else. As a matter of fact, I can't think of anyone in either party that I would vote for against him. I trust him completely, he's a good man.

As to the voting for a woman in 2008? Yeah, I would do it. Condoleza (sp?) Rice - She's smart enough, strong enough, and (IMO) trustworthy enough. I'd love to see a qualified, black, female, Republican run against Hillary. Talk about a confused base. It would take the race card right out of the Dems deck...
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 01:19 AM
Hillary: I don't see it. She is a Democratic rock star right now...something I really don't understand. She is a terribly bland speaker with a message of simple Socialism. Perhaps that's her appeal, our nation's rising sense of entitlement.

Condi vs Hillary: I love it!!! The only thing against Condi is the association with Bush which might be hard to shake. I bet those would be some great debates.

Zell Miller: I too really can appreciate this man's message. He is a true old school Democrat...the good parts of the party. Now, I wish we could have a Republican with enough balls to pull back the curtain on the Republican's like Miller did to the Democrats. The people as a whole really need to understand how outside influences plague both parties and corrupt the process of government down to it's core. Yes, that's pretty idealistic...one can only hope.

Michael Moore: I just watched O'Reily's interview with Michael Moore. That man is truly dillusional. He is so deadset on getting rid of Bush that he won't accept simple logic. Whenever he is painted into a corner during an argument, he snaps back, changing the subject or distorting the facts to fit his point....sort of like his movie.

Edward Kennedy: still the ever-bleeding heart

Predator vs Alien (AVP): COOL!!!!

Xanadu: Olivia was so damn hot!!! ..... Sorry, the wife was channel surfing.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 03:39 AM
As you can see thus far, I am not scared to talk.

More Opinions

Howard Dean: Still has that unhinged insane look in his eye. I so wanted him to scream that lunatic howl again.

Barack Obama: This guy is a future star!! He has the eloquence and fire of Bill Clinton. As they panned in on Hillory, I have to wonder if she felt that cold chill of someone walking over her grave.....the footsteps of a man named Barack that will be the man to crush her hopes of being the next Democratic president.

Thereza Heinz Kerry: I have to summon the angels of freedom and liberty to see if they can explain to me what the hell she was talking about. Through environmental policy and leadership we are going to reenergize the spirit of America.....Through the faces of our Peace Corps volunteers, we will restore the dwindling faith in the American ideal....BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.....She thinks entirely too much...perhaps in too many languages. The problem is that those thoughts aren't very coherent. In her mind, in this era of terrorism, our saving grace is indeed going to be the idealistic gazes of the birkenstock-wearing peace corps volunteers (I can say that since I have a pair ).

I think that Thereza seems to have missed the lesson of Hillary and Bill. The American public wants to elect a president, not a first lady. We are not voting for her ideas. I don't think that she just did justice to Kerry's campaign. She pretty much made a Thereza Heinz speech and not a candidate's spouse speech. If anything, the beginning of her speech almost gave kudos to the liberating actions of Bush.

Oh well.....In the end, I don't think my first impressions is that I want to see her as our first lady. Take the presidency out of the mix and I'm left with the impression that she's kind of a space cadet mired in her own flighty thoughts.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 04:27 AM
In reply to:


funny thing is.. she really hopes, deep down, that george w will win the election, so she will be set up as the 2008 demo candidate.. whatcha think about them apples??




Not funny, its absolutely true. I believe Kerry would make a bad President because I don't believe he could make the hard decisions, or the right ones. Hillary, now she just comes across as a female version of the devil! Seriously!

Bill thou, he was the master used-car-salesman-President, nobody will deny that.

Oh how I miss Reagan. Was he not the best President ever when it came to talking TO the American ppl.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 08:34 AM
In reply to:

I believe Kerry would make a bad President because I don't believe he could make the hard decisions, or the right ones.


Why?

In reply to:

Oh how I miss Reagan. Was he not the best President ever when it came to talking TO the American ppl.


I'll grant you that. His speechwriters were great and he new how to deliver speeches extremely well. You don't think any of that was his own words, do you?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 12:26 PM
turbodog- i couldnt agree more with the thereza comments.. her speech was boring, rambling, and just plain sporatic. if i wanted to hear some female ramble on about herself all night, i would have gone to a barbara streisand concert.. big mistake putting her on the podium..

now, as far as the moore/oreilly interview.. i think you are completely wrong.. oreailkly was the one scrambling for answers, and changing the subject. everytime moore tried to get him to stand on one single issue, all oreilly did was say "maybe", or "that depends".. the weasel would never commit to a single answer.. at least moore has the gumption and balls to stand up, and pick a side on an issue.. now if his view is differnet than yours, then thats a different story.. but, at least he takes the initiative to speak his voice, and not waller in nothingness like oreilly and his cronies.

you and i have complete polar opposite views when it came to that interview.

oh, and obama.. two thumbs up.. great speaker.. and, just like you, i was waiting for deans cork to explode.. i think we agree pretty much, except for the moore/oreilly interview..

bigjohn
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 05:04 PM
It's interesting to hear that two people and watch and listen to the same thing and come away with completely different views on it. Ain't politics great!

Let me give a quick run down of my thoughts...

1) Michael Moore - Over the top? Of course. Does he go too far sometimes? Yep. But much like G. Dubya himself, he's got a point of view, and whether you love it or hate it he's sticking to it.

2) Barak Obama - Can you say "First black President"?

3) Hillary Clinton - To say that she hopes Kerry loses is obsurd. Of course she wants to run. But her time will come. 2008 isn't it.

4) Bill Clinton - Hot damn that boy can speak. Republicans and Dems alike agree his speach was amazing. It's got to kill him to know that if he could run again he's win in a landslide.

5) "I'm a uniter not a divider"...those words are clearly going to be G. Dubya's "Read my lips..." I think the Dems are on the right track to talk of uniting the nation again. The country is so split right now it makes both sides feel uneasy. I truly believe we're a stronger nation when we're united as one. I'll go a step further and say we're a stronger nation when we're united with the world. I think the current administrations policy of "it's our way or the highway" is terribly dangerous. Just because we can bully the world doesn't mean we should.

6) Howard Dean - Howard's scream heard around the world was so completely blown out of proportion. I'm so sick of hearing about it. He had just finished third in a primary that going into he was considered an easy winner. His supporters needed their spirits lifted. He was simply trying to rally his troups.

7)WMD - I hate stating the obvious, but clearly no WMD have been found in Iraq. But that's not really the issue that bothers me the most. The fact that we're agressively, VERY agressively, trying to stop all nations of the world from developing their own WMD, while at the same time developing NEW nuclear weapons ourselves is EXTEMELY disturbing. What happened to the axiom "lead by example?" Our country likely has more WMD then the rest of the world combined. Can you blame the world for calling us hypocrites?

8) Dick Cheney - If dumping him as VP wouldn't look like a complete act of desperation, it would be the right thing to do. He's about as popular in as Jesse Jackson at a KKK rally. From his oil men deciding the future of our country's energy policy, to his ties with the incredibly immoral Haliburton, to dropping the F bomb on the Senate floor...what else could he do to help sink G. Dubya's ship?

9)Smaller Government? - I thought Republicans wanted smaller government? I thought they were the "hands off" party? Since George took office the federal government has been sticking it's nose into our personal lives more than ever before. Checking library records? Withholding money from medical clinics if they offer obortions? (Regardless of all the other medical assistance they also offer?) Rounding up people, holding them without legal representation - and with no charges against them? He's even gone so far as to try and write descrimination into our Constitution! (Bravo to the six republicans who dared cross the party line and vote against the ammendment.) This is smaller government? This is compassionate conservatism? Give me a break. It boils down to George's simplistic view of the world again. He believes he is right, and if he's right, and you disagree with him, that must mean you're wrong. If you're wrong, then what does it matter what you think? He loves to force his view of the world on others. He's pro-life, so if you're not, you get no funds. He believes homosexuality is a sin, so let's write that into the constitution. You disagree with the war in Iraq? Well you must simply be un-American.

10) John Kerry - John Kerry and G. Dubya look at the world very, very differently. From what I've witnessed in the past four years, and from what I've seen/heard/read about Kerry, it boils down to a fundamental difference in how they think. To George, the world is very simple. It's black or it's white. It's right or wrong, good or evil. He looks at an issue, decides what his stance is, and then digs in his heels, and won't budge. Why should he? His view is clearly the only one that is right. That's the beauty of seeing the world in black and white. There's no room for discussion. That's both George's greatest strength but I believe also his biggest weakness. He takes a stand and "leads", but at the same time his blind faith in what he believes leaves him a very stubborn man going through the world with blinders on. John Kerry on the other hand sees very little black and white. He sees shades of gray. He sees issues from every angle. This gives him a much better understanding of the issues at hand, but also gives him the appearance of never taking a firm stand on things. Again this "seeing gray" is both Kerry's strength and also his weakness.

The bottom line is which view of the world do you feel more comfortable voting for? I personally see the world in shades of gray myself. While I may have a personal opinion on an issue, I understand it's my opinion, and that there are other ways of seeing things. I too will very often give indirect answers. Things are simply too complicated for yes or no, right and wrong, good and evil. But does that mean I cannot make a stand? Does that mean I cannot make important decisions. No of course not. It simply means when I do make a decision, it's one that has been pondered, picked apart, looked at inside and out, and understood. I rarely make a decision without serious thought and understanding. I don't want my President doing it either.

FYI...I'm NOT a registered Democrat. I'm an independent, because I don't blindly subscribe to any one party. I voted for Reagan, I voted for Perot, I voted for Clinton, I voted for Gore, and this year I'll vote for Kerry. Nothing drives me more crazy than people who vote strictly by party. Many people don't even look into the candidates or the issues. They simply vote straight down the line one party of the other. Grrrrrr...makes my blood boil. Get off your lazy asses and educate yourselves on the issues and the candidates and make your own decision. If you're a Dem and REALLY don't like Kerry, look at the other candidates. If you're a Republican and really dislike Bush...take a look at Nader or Michael Badnarik. It's not throwing away your vote. The only wasted vote is one that's cast for someone you don't agree with.


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 05:49 PM
all right craig..

IT IS ALIVE!!!!

good post. covering many angles. i like it!

bigjohn
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 05:59 PM
Nice to have you back, Craig. Great post! Really enjoyed it.
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 08:56 PM
In reply to:

Putting aside her politics....do you think the country is ready for a female president by 2008?




Sure...As long as it's NOT Hillary Clinton

Mark
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/28/04 09:30 PM
First of all, welcome back Spiff. Now, what's up with trying to outdo me in post length? That's crap.

Here we go:

Michael Moore - I still have to disagree w/ you BigJohn on that dialog. Moore was completely sidestepping O'Reily's question about what makes something a lie versus a misinformed decision. Yes, O'Reily wouldn't get sucked into Moore's question about letting his kid die for Fallujah because it's a bogus question. The question should have been "If your kid decided to join the armed forced and pledged his willingness to die, if need be, to implement the orders of our Commander and Chief, would you let your child die for Fallujah?". Moore was trying to trap O'Reily into saying he'd sacrifice his kid for Iraq and it's a loaded question, which is why he would only answer for himself. If you haven't figured it out, Moore excels in manipulating situations, context, and the simplicity of his viewers to make his point. Don't get me wrong, I applaud anyone willing to take a stand for what he or she believes. The problem with Moore is the base fact that he distorts events and deceives his viewers by painting pictures that are not supported by reality. I don't doubt his sincerity...I doubt his ethics. A man beating someone up on the street isn't always what it appears to be.....what Moore purposely does is, in order to paint the man as a bully, omits the fact that the man just caught the man fondling his child (yes, hypothetical). The man may have been beating up the other man (FACT), but the implication that he is a bully is not supported by reality....the net effect of the omission of context.

Hillary - You give her too much credit. I don't know all the details, but this internal battle in the Democratic party, Kerry camp and Clinton camp, over control of funds is evidence enough for me of the Clinton power aspirations. If Kerry wins, she's on the sideline for at least 8 years. If he loses, then the door is open for her to be the savior in 4 years....that was before Obama.

Howard Dean - Yep, he took a beating over that. He was doomed from the start....not enough of a politician to satisfy the pallet of the party.

Haliburton - Talk about a nasty word in today's climate. I don't know enough about what they did or did not do that was so bad, but it amazes me how pissed people get about them. My understanding is that they have been contracting to do nation rebuilding since back in the World Wars. I guess it must be similar to the sentiment out there that we went to war solely to make all the cronies rich, which I think is bunk. Because Cheney was associated w/ them, this whole thing must have been to make Cheney rich....a little too much conspiracy theory to me. Regardless, I would love for someone to educate me on what Haliburton did that made them this devil in the eyes of the Democrats.....Caveat: Please provide valid facts that can be confirmed. My Dad hit me recently with the passionate plea of wrongdoing w/out actually providing me with any more substance than "it had to be ....". I am very interested in the reality here and not speculation.

Smaller Government - Yes, Bush has definitely missed the boat on the idea of small government. Because he is so entrenched in the Republican Party structure and all of the outside influences, I don't expect to see any changes in this realm. As I've said before, the benefit to Bush on this front is the mere fact that he's going to spend us into oblivion at a much slower rate that Kerry. If we're lucky, someone will come along in 4 years that has enough idealism to avoid becoming a hoar to the special interests (both sides).

Bush vs Kerry - I will agree with your statements concerning Bush's Black/White approach. There are times when that is good and there are times where that is bad. The way we went into war was one of the latter. If he was intent on doing so, there was arguably better ways to go about it while still achieving the same ends. As far as Kerry goes, I agree somewhat on his seeing gray. My issue is intent. You ascribe this trait to his seeing all sides of an issue. This may be true to some degree...only those close to him know for sure. I, on the other hand, see his approach to be more self-serving. I don't see him analyzing things from all sides for the sake of understanding. I see a man that analyses things from both sides in order to understand only how each position serves his purpose and political aspirations. He is the quintessential politician, which is not a good thing.

The Vietnam movie camera - This story is just coming out, but it appears that Kerry had a camera in Vietnam that he used to record himself reenacting battle scenes and making commentary. Obviously, there will be more details to follow, but this just truly confirms what I said above. kerry has been shaping his life from the start to get to this point. Some may not have a problem with doing that, but it gives me the damn creeps. It just makes me wonder "What kind of person....".

Spiff - I agree fully with your statement about our voting public. This is going to sound very jaded, but I truly believe that we have a large portion of the voting body that are a bunch of sheep voting purely on party lines....based solely upon the sound-bites that they pick up from the commercials between reality programs. When I really start thinking about it, I actually fear for the nation. Our sense of civic understanding and responsibility is going by the wayside...replaced by a self-fulfilling, self-imposed state of ignorance and self-centeredness. Can we blame our politicians for speaking in generalities and focusing on hot-button issues that generally don't affect our day to day lives? Given their audience's unwillingness to educate itself, they have no reason to actually establish a thorough and concise policy platform.

OK...I'm outta here. Again, I love this dialog!!!...just proves that we have a great group of people gathered here….even the Liberals

Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/29/04 01:49 AM
"I actually fear for the nation. Our sense of civic understanding and responsibility is going by the wayside...replaced by a self-fulfilling, self-imposed state of ignorance and self-centeredness. Can we blame our politicians for speaking in generalities and focusing on hot-button issues that generally don't affect our day to day lives? Given their audience's unwillingness to educate itself, they have no reason to actually establish a thorough and concise policy platform."

I found this part very interesting. It's the first time I've seen it from the other angle that the public's ignorance make the politicians the way they are. Kind of a chicken and egg scenario. I think most of us take for granted the freedoms that we have, and don't take the time to get educated on the issues and what is really going on. I'll admit, I am sometimes guilty of this myself. For example, I don't even know what Haliburton is, or who this Barak(sp) guy is that has been mentioned a few times, other then that I have determined from the thread that he is African American and a dem. So, yes, I'm a bit behind with some of this stuff, but I do find this thread very interesting and am using it to make an attempt to start helping to educate myself.



Posted By: mwc Re: OT: politics - 07/29/04 01:54 AM
Great post Craig! I love your refreshing and THOUGHTFULL and civil take on the current political climate. It's as though you took the words right out of my mouth. I'd vote for you if you ran for office.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 07/29/04 03:31 AM
"I'll admit, I am sometimes guilty of this myself."

I think that we all are to some degree. I have only recently begun to become aware of these issues. The topic is so complex and/or convoluted that's it's a lot easier to just accept that everything is truly f...ed up and focus on our own lives. It's truly an effort to peel back the onion...one which many are unwilling to commit to. Hell, I sometimes wish that I hadn't made the leap, mostly because I now painfully understand how screwed up the system is and how little we can do to fix it.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 07/29/04 04:49 PM
mwc - thanks.

The internet is finally making a huge impact on politics. It's making it easier for lots of little guys to speak with one loud voice. Whether or not you agree with their world view, you've got to be impressed with what MoveOn.org has been able to accomplish in the past few years. I just hope that when/if Kerry takes office they don't slack off. Kerry may lean more towards MoveOn.org members views, but that doesn't mean he should get a free ride. Every president...heck every politician needs a watchdog, whether their Rep, Dem or something else.

That's one thing I like about Michael Moore. He may hate G. Dubya with a passion, but he understands that ALL politicians are corrupt. If you read his book "Stupid White Men", you'll note that he ripped Clinton quite a bit as well. He may be doing everything in his power to unseat Bush, but I guarantee he won't give Kerry a free ride.






Posted By: les9596 Re: OT: politics - 07/29/04 09:02 PM
I'd like to make a comment about Michael Moore, since he is so much in the news these days and seemingly close to the heart of so many people. I don't know whether he's right or wrong, but I do think he's not much of a man.

I used to like MM. I thought his first movie, Roger and Me, was a clever and mostly gentle movie about the GM plant closing in Flint, Michigan. It's point was to illustrate the tragedy of what happened, and not just to slow-roast GM execs. Mostly, he let the people he interviewed and the scenes he filmed speak for themselves. The drama came from the natural conflict between the goals of the executives and the values of the workers. It was a documentary, and it was art. At least, I thought so then.

But by the time he made Bowling for Columbine, MM had become one very angry young man (even though he's not so young and should know better by now) who was so sure of himself and his cause that he felt justified in humiliating an Alzheimer's patient (a certain actor named Charlton Heston) simply because he's the titular head of the NRA. Let me say that again because it's so important. He humiliated Chuck Heston not because of anything he did, but because of what he was.

What made that episode particularly ugly to me is that I later saw an interview where he said that, after they had filmed the Heston interview, he and his crew talked about how using the footage would appear vindictive and cruel, but decided to use it anyway because; "the point we were trying to make was too important." (a paraphrase, not his exact words)

What hubris! What childish disrespect for others! If only, instead of thinking of Charlton Heston's dignity, he had considered his own!

But I suspect he only considered his own rising star. Each of his subsiquent works have become more strident, more uncompromising, more righteous. There's always been a strong streak of puritan, holier-than-thou righteousness in Americans, and populist demagogues like MM have always been willing to play on it. Traditionally, demagogues prey on conservative fears, and MM is no different. What is different this time is that MM reflects the conservative fears of the political perspective usually called liberal. But of course being "liberal" doesn't make us any more resistant to populism. Only our life experience and a strong sense of personal identity can do that. It really is all about character.

So here's my warning to MM and everyone else carried into dark territory by the righteousness of their cause:

Righteous anger only exists in the movies. Real anger is never, ever righteous. Anger can give you short-term strength, but in the long run is always exhausting, debilitating, and corrupting. Anger blinds you to the good in others and to your own errors. Anger is poison, self-administered. We all get angry, but most of us see it as a character flaw. Only a few of us are foolish and destructive enough to strive for it and make it our signature.

So I totally reject all of MM's anger. To me Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary the same way Reefer Madness is a documentary. Most of us will live long enough to see it discredited. Some of us will live long enough to see it become self-parody. And MM himself no doubt will serve as another reminder to us of that old Hollywood maxim:

Be nice to the people you meet on your way up. You'll meet them again on your way down.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/29/04 10:15 PM
Way too much stuff has been said for me to respond to it all, but...

Many people feel like what is wrong with American politics IS the weakening of party allegiance among the electorate.

Due to our electoral system we will always have a 2 part system. Thus, for practical reasons, neither party will have a coherent ideological position that determines the party's stance on every issue (unlike the Communist Party or the Libertarians). Our system also precludes the success of single issue parties like we see so often in Europe (Greens, National Front, a bunch of others whose names escape me).

As a result of our 2 party system, voters should select the party whose platform most closely matches their own beliefs, or choose the party which they feel will best serve their personal interest, and then vote strictly along party lines regardless of who the candidate is. Because there are so many swing voters in the middle now - being influenced by such irrelevant factors as candidates' looks, speechifying skills , single issues, etc... - both parties are becoming increasingly centrist, pandering to the shallow and fickle middle.

In all honesty, it is my personal opinion that Kerry was finally chosen as the candidate to oppose Bush because he "looks" most like a President should and will appeal to those in the middle whose vote can be swayed by such things. He certainly wasn't chosen based on his sterling record or his great orating skills, eh? The media annointed him the presumpive nominee and now all he has to do is trot out and look good for the cameras.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/29/04 10:38 PM
In reply to:

trot out and look good for the cameras



well, theres a little more to it than that, but i understand the point you are trying to make.

i have been saying from the get-go, that the only way george w will win this election, is if the democrats keep screwing things up!! well, i never thought kerry was the best choice, actually, i really didnt care for any of them.. but, that is the man that the party has chosen, so i have to deal with it.

but, i will say this(and probably piss a lot of y'all off).. if the democratic party would have chosen a better candidate to run against george w, then this election wouldnt even be close. it would be a dang near sure win for the demos. i truly believe there are a lot more people in this country that want to see bush gone, than there are that want to see him stay.. the only problem is, the demos have given us a weak candidate, and so it then becomes a choice of the 'lesser of two evils'.. and those voters riding the fence, half will fall demo, half will fall repub. hence, the much closer election..

there is still lots of time before nov 2nd.. i am content to let things roll on and see where it goes..

BTW- i would like to say that, as a texan, i aint gettin to see none of the TV ads for either party.. it is pretty much agreed that george w will sweep texas, so neither party is even bothering wasting money on commercials down here.. just thought i would throw that in there.. that is a WHOLE element of their campaigns that i will never see..

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/29/04 10:55 PM
Ditto out here in Ca, John.

The baby cut his lip so I had to shorten my last post.

There is lots of talk about Bush being a divider, but that does not appear to be the case to me (except with the gay marriage shennanigans). At a couple of points in time almost the entire country was united behind Bush (what was his highest approval rating 80+ pts?). Now he's a different guy?

How can you explain that kind of turn around in such a short time? Because Iraq may not have had WMDs? Or is it because of the relentless, divisive attacks by partisan Democrats and their lackeys in the media? Because of the daily negative coverage of the war in Iraq? It appears to me that Bush's opponents have gone to great lengths to divide the American public from him.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 12:05 AM
In reply to:

There is lots of talk about Bush being a divider, but that does not appear to be the case to me (except with the gay marriage shennanigans). At a couple of points in time almost the entire country was united behind Bush (what was his highest approval rating 80+ pts?). Now he's a different guy?




You're pulling my leg, right?

Post 9/11 was rally around the flag time. There could have been a chimp in office, and his approval ratings would have sky rocketed after the attack. In fact prior to 9/11 is rating was at 55%. (source)

Gay marriage may be the biggest dividing issue, or at least the most talked about, but his policies regarding government funding of faith based organiztions, pulling of funds from clinics that offer abortions, premptive wars without proper cause, pulling out of nuclear test ban treaties...the list goes on and on.


Posted By: sidvicious02 Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 02:57 AM
I was curious to know what more Americans thought of Gen. Clark? During the early stages of campaigning I read a couple of interviews with him and I thought him to be extremely well-spoken and one of the more conservative democratic candidates. He seemed to be a natural to take not only the Dem vote but the center undecideds too, yet he wasn't even close to winning the nomination....did I miss something about him?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 03:05 AM
"...his policies regarding government funding of faith based organiztions, pulling of funds from clinics that offer abortions, premptive wars without proper cause, pulling out of nuclear test ban treaties...the list goes on and on."

Spiff, no doubt your personal feelings towards Bush stem from a deep source. I might not be a Bush supporter in your position either, as he certainly seems willing to bash homosexuals to appease his conservative base. FWIW, and I'm sure you're aware, Kerry is opposed to gay marriage as well. The Democrats were unwilling to make gay marriage a wedge issue apparently.

I've re-evaluated my abortion stance after seeing my son on an ultrasound at 5 mos. At 5 mos. it is too late for an abortion, IMO. Little guy was moving all over the place on his own - sucking his thumb and grabbing his feet. He was well beyond the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" phase - most definitely a human at that point.

With modern medicine (RU486 and birth control pills as a contraceptive and abortive device) there is no moral way to support abortion in that second trimester. Granted, some conservatives (and Catholics) have resisted RU486, but in my view, they shouldn't. Bush is correct to attempt to bring the abortion issue back into the public conscience, IMO.

Regarding foreign policy... Bush earned the approval ratings post 9-11 and before the Iraq invasion. A chimp would have done not as well as Bush, but better than Gore, IMO. Gore would have asked the French for permission before defending America, but I think the chimp would have been happy to simply fart in their general direction.

Congress approved the use of force against Iraq and to this day have not voted to force the return of our troops. The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have both been hugely successful despite all the leftist propaganda to the contrary.

Fact remains that Kerry is a non-deserving stiff of a candidate, a prototypical populist whore politician.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 03:08 AM
All that talk about anger just made me think of one thing.

Who's familiar with Rage Against the Machine, specifically the song Freedom (last track on the 1st album). There are parts where it gets quiet for a second and if you have it turned up you can hear the singer whisper, "Anger is a gift."
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 03:56 AM
Shifting gears once again, I just wanted to be clear on one thing.

As I've stated I fall to the conservative side of most issues, I truly try not just go with whatever the *right* thinks on everything however. I'm not going to get into listing what all that would be... where I'm going is my views of the *left* and *liberalism*.

I am definitely *liberal* on some issues, its just that most polititans on the far left (i.e. Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc) scare me because they are actually Socialists in disguise. I FIRMLY believe in personal responsibility and that is most certainly not a trait of Socialism. I much prefer Capitalism because I don't want a hand out and I certainly don't want to be empowering the government to do it in my name. There is a time, place and ppl that do need assistance but we need a better system in place to address those issues than blindly starting up new gov program after program.

I am extremely passionate on this point, and that is why I truly believe electing someone like John Kerry would be disastrous.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 03:59 AM
Sorry about all the abortion talk - just been on my mind for the past year and a half.

My point was, and I failed to make it, that we have divisive issues in our society. In this case, the divisive issues already existed. That Bush does not agree with the prevailing liberal POV, and actively seeks to change that status quo, is really the issue, spiff.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 08:30 AM
I'm curious to know what issues you beleive John Kerry is "far left" on.

I'm also curious to know if you or your family has ever needed any government assistance. It's been my experience that people who preach "personal responsibility" and don't believe in "government handouts", are usually people who've never needed assistance of any kind. I guess it's understandable. If you've never needed public assistance, why should you have to pay for it, no? Do you consider affordable health care a left wing, government handout? If so, I'm guessing that's because you have and can afford healthcare of your own. Why should you help support healthcare for others? Contributing to the common good and uplift of others isn't socialism.

I too do not want a hand out. But not everyone comes from a family of means. I had to take government loans and grants to go to college. I had to apply for low income housing to afford my rent. But I got my education, I had a roof over my head, and I busted my ass working all day and going to school at night. Without those grants and loans, and without that affordable housing, I'd not have been able to get where I am today. I'm making more money, paying my taxes and contributing to society. Who should I thank for my "hand out"?
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 08:38 AM
Just a side note...I find it astounding that this political thread has gone on for nine pages and has remained civilized. We can't talk about tube amps or speaker wires this civilly for more than three posts! Let's keep up the great conversation!


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 11:58 AM
9 pages? try 22! Maybe it's time I boosted my posts per page count...
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 01:19 PM
i got 11 pages, but i think i am at 20posts per page??

so, any critiques on the kerry speech last night?? i watched, but didnt hear everything that he said.. i was over at a buddies house(he's a republican), and he had just blown out his knee earlier in the day while wakeboarding.. ACL, MCL, tendons, patella, etc.. it was all tore up.. his dang knee was the size of a cantelope.. anyway, a bunch of us were over there so i wasnt able to hear everything kerry said.

i aint gonna go real deep, but the points i heard were good.. he hit all the hot topics, and spoke with a fair amount of verocity.. 45 minutes was right at the length where people would start to lose interest. i still think he needs to get more 'specific' on exactly how he plans to change the things he says he will change. to say it is one thing, to actually have a gameplan is something else.

all in all, good, but not great.. as long as he keeps his wife away from the microphones for the rest of this campaign, he should be all right. now the fun will be to see how the repubs chop up and pick apart his speech.. plus, we still have the great george w to speak. it makes me giggle just thinkin about it. watching him talk, is like sitting at a train crossing, waiting for a wreck. its gonna happen, eventually.. and when he gets that glassed over, deer in the headlights look, i will be rolling on the floor with laughter. he is better than any comedy routine i have ever seen... sorry, i am rambling now.

bigjohn
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Kerry Speach - 07/30/04 03:58 PM
Pros -

"...reporting for duty." Smart in two ways. 1) Props him up as a soldier, and strong military leader. 2) Positions himself as a servant of the people, rather than the other way around.

"...don't wear my religion on my sleeve..." All at once a swipe at Bush's extreme religious views, and even his foreign policy. Bush has a frightening sense that because of his "close personal relationship" with god, that whatever he personally believes is also what god believes. It also positions Kerry as a religious man with moderate, fair, values himself.

"old glory" - The republicans have tried very hard to prop themselves up as the only party of patriotism. That if you don't support George and everything he believes in, then you must be un-American, and un-Patriotic. I think Kerry squashed that idea very well last night.

I was afraid Kerry would come across as dry, dull, and boring and was very pleased that he seemed to come out of his shell a bit, and actually act like he had a pulse. He managed to do it in a way that still seemed like himself though. If he'd poured too much into it, it would have come off as phony.

Cons - He promised 40,000 more troops. Where the heck are they coming from?

He promised to roll back the recent tax breaks for people making over $200,000/year...bravo to that I say, but what about other tax breaks for the super rich? What about the tax breaks on dividend payments? Since the dividend tax break CEO's across the country have started dramatically increasing their dividend payouts and making tons and tons of tax free money. The greed of the super rich makes me sick to my stomach. I don't have any problem with people making a lot of money. I don't doubt they may have indeed earned it, but I feel if you are super wealthy you must pay your fair share, and I believe your fair share is indeed MORE than what the middle and lower class pays. A friend of mine made over $100,000 last year for the first time. He paid LESS taxes because of it. He himself thought that was sick. Because he made MORE, his tax rate went down.

There are so many tax loopholes and ways to work the system that many of the super rich pay next to nothing in taxes. How do they do it? They can afford high priced accountants to come up with schemes...legal schemes to get out of paying taxes. I know, a good friend of mine does it for a living. He's given me advice and some of the ideas he comes up with are quite clever, but by no means fair. The fact is, the more money you have the easier it is to pay fewer taxes.

Other than those two points, I was very impressed with the speach. I look forward to seeing the RNC next month. Though if Bush's speach this morning in Missouri is any indication of what's to come, I'm not sure I can sit through it. Did anyone watch that speach this morning? As soon as he got started he tried scaring the nation into thinking that Kerry is going to raise everyone's taxes.

I guess that brings me to another question. So many people cry that Kerry is going to spend, spend, spend, and raise taxes again and again. That's been the Republican mantra since I can remember. If I'm not mistaken under eight years of Clinton, debt was being paid off, and the had an enormous budget surplus. Does that sound like a "tax and spend liberal"? That is certainly how he was painted while he ran. Even if he was a tax and spender, wouldn't that at least be better than what we have now? Now we have a spender and spender. We're just putting everything on a credit card. Over the next several years the biggest expense to our country will be interest on debt. Bigger than all the money we spend on defense, bigger than all the money we spend on healthcare, bigger than all the money we spend on education.

Certainly doesn't sound like the Republican way of running the country to me. Fiscal responsibility is extremely important. George simply doesn't get that.


Posted By: mhorgel Re: Kerry Speach - 07/30/04 04:50 PM
I think before anybody votes for another candidate from either party, they should read John Stossel's book "Give Me A break". Stossel is a lone voice of reason in the insane mob which is the media. He (and I) believe in individual responsibility, government poking its nose out of our lives through deregulation and decreased taxes and spending, and tort reform to stop the trial lawyers from running our lives.

After reading Stossel's book, tell me that lawsuits against vaccine makers, the EPA superfund, and the Americans With Disabilities Act are good ideas. This country needs a major overhaul, but unfortunately both political parties are so close together in ideology, that any real change is going to be next to impossible.

Mark

Libertarian at heart.
Posted By: pablo Re: Kerry Speach - 07/30/04 06:10 PM
I agree Mark that with both parties having strayed so far from their fundamental beliefs that voters largely base their decisions upon individual issues, style, and perceptions. Though I'm generally a Republican my pivotal issue will be stem cell research as my family has been impacted by Alzheimers and the use of stem cells can dramatically improve the prognosis for many of my family members threatened by this disease. I give credit to Kerry for understanding the importance of this issue. I also think there are some traditional Democrats that are turned off by the manipulation of Michael Moore and Kerry's association with Al Sharpton, who could go for the Bushwacker as a result of these associations.

Personally I cannot wait for the political theatre that will develop over the next 3 months. It should be better than the old Saturday Night Live (w/Belushi).
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 06:27 PM
Spiffnme, you really should go back and read this entire thread.

"I'm curious to know what issues you beleive John Kerry is "far left" on."

I didn't listen to his speech, but from the excerpts in the paper it sounds like he promised a federal health care program, federally funded class size reductions, and a federally funded preschool program, among other things. All of these new programs are possible without raising taxes on the middle class or the wealthy (he only proposes to "roll back" the tax cuts the wealthy received earlier)? How do you fund the ENORMOUS cost of those programs? You don't. None of those things will happen should Kerry get elected. It's all populist BS.

"It's been my experience that people who preach "personal responsibility" and don't believe in "government handouts", are usually people who've never needed assistance of any kind...Contributing to the common good and uplift of others isn't socialism."

It's been my experience that financially secure Liberals who live in nice areas far from the underclass for whom they feel pity are frequently out of touch with reality. As a teacher, I see the same scenario played out every year, hundreds of times over (it's like watching a depressing version of "Groundhog Day"). Kids making poor life decisions: doing drugs, having babies, failing classes, truancy, UNDERACHIEVING, etc... A few short years from now all those kids will probably join the DNC and clamor for gov't handouts, bemoan the lack of fairness in this world, scream "tax the rich", etc...

So half the kids work hard and succeed, the other half f***s around and has a good old time. Should they all receive the same grade? Should I "tax" the overachievers, take a percentage of their points and give them to the kids "who really need it" - the ones who are about to fail because they screwed around all semester? There is nothing noble in the efforts of populist politicians when they preach these big give-aways. All these gov't programs we have today enable people to make crappy decisions and get away with it, even be rewarded for it. All of us who get up and go to work each day are handed the bill.

Folks need to take care of themselves. Period.

And, FYI, my dad was a truck driver that never graduated from HS and my mom was a Mississippi farm girl who cleaned other peoples' houses. Hardly a silver spoon background.
Posted By: twodan19 Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 07:10 PM
bigwill, when i taught, about 15 yrs ago, we had the kids (6th graders) brushing their teeth at their seats w/out tooth paste, starting their day with OJ, which we teachers had to serve, and provided hot lunches to those less fortunate. one of the kids asked me if i had a snowmobile. i said i could not afford one. he then said it was easy, spend all your money on the skidoo, then i could apply for aid and food stamps."that's what we did" he said. we also had title 1 programs so we could try to teach 6th grades how to read Dick & Jane. well after several years of this bull, i asked the principal why we spent so much on those who will never read above a 3rd grade level, and why didn't we spend some of that money making the achievers over achievers(sp). can't, it's govt money.
so, like you, i have no problem helping those who really need help. but, it frosts my a$$ to provide for those who are the 2nd and 3rd generation of low life moochers who know the ins and outs better that i; time for more workfare and less welfare. don't get me started!
dan
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 10:34 PM
You make it sound like the only people who need assistance are people who simply f*&ked off their whole lives. If that were true, I'd agree...screw 'em. But it's not that simple.

"We have more to do to make quality health care available and affordable." - George W. Bush 7/30/04

"And we value health care that's affordable and accessible for all Americans." - John F. Kerry 7/29/04

Why is it Kerry gets attacked for saying it, but not Bush? Kerry's a "tax and spender" for saying it, but not Bush? Did I miss something?




Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/30/04 11:46 PM
"You make it sound like the only people who need assistance are people who simply f*&ked off their whole lives. If that were true, I'd agree...screw 'em. But it's not that simple."

We all have stories like twodans to tell. Stories of witnessing the abuse of social programs first hand. I have too many to tell.

All of these freebies are well intentioned programs that actually cause more harm than good. If you really want me to, I'll explain why.

"Why is it Kerry gets attacked for saying it, but not Bush? Kerry's a "tax and spender" for saying it, but not Bush?"

I didn't get the full text of Kerry's speech, but the paper said he proposes a comprehensive federal health care system. I did see a direct quote regarding his belief that health care should be a basic right for all Americans. Bush ain't saying that.

In Bush's speech this morning he alluded to improving health care affordability and accessability by limiting malpractice suits and large punitive settlements. He proposes allowing small businesses to form consortiums(?) for the purpose of providing healthcare to their employees at the kind of discounted rates that large corporations can negotiate. Kerry's proposal is far different than what Bush is talking about.


Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 07/31/04 12:21 AM
In reply to:

I did see a direct quote regarding his belief that health care should be a basic right for all Americans. Bush ain't saying that.



Do you honestly feel that healthcare should only be available to those who can pay for it? If so that's just one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree on.

In reply to:

He proposes allowing small businesses to form consortiums(?) for the purpose of providing healthcare to their employees at the kind of discounted rates that large corporations can negotiate.



Sounds like a good idea.

Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 07/31/04 03:21 AM
I have not posted but once in this entire thread but I have read every last word of it.I must commend each and every one of you that has contributed to it.This has been by far my favorite read each and every day.To keep it as civil as you boys have is outstanding.BRAVO!
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/31/04 03:25 AM
"Do you honestly feel that healthcare should only be available to those who can pay for it? If so that's just one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree on."

We both know that no one is going without life saving medical care in the US (at least from what I see here in California). Dentistry should be what the Democrats are crying about, IMO.

Healthcare was discussed on another thread - I forget where. I just downgraded my family's coverage from a PPO to an HMO because the cost was going to be prohibitive.

What to do? Judging by what the Canadians have said here a federal health care system may not be the way to go. If such a system could work well, you would think that Canada could pull it off (relatively small and homogenus population).

I don't know I'm blitzed.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 07/31/04 04:35 AM
Saw this quote on some whacked forum:

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan -Remarks in Arlington, Virginia, September 25, 1987



Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 07/31/04 04:37 PM
In reply to:

Do you honestly feel that healthcare should only be available to those who can pay for it? If so that's just one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree on.




Spiff,

This is one area in which we "right wingers" get painted with the wrong brush. We do not want people to die, or to get sick and stay sick. Our issue is how we get from point A to point B. Kerry just wants to reach into our pockets, open our wallets, and hand over the cash to the government. Once the money is there, we have lost control of it. We have to beg politicians to actually spend it on healthcare instead of other stuff. They will come up will all sorts of qualifications that must be met for us to get access to the healthcare (IF they spent the money). So while we are lying there sick, we need to hire a lawyer to fight the system for us and then we finally get the bare minimun level of service when we finally "win". The laywers on both side are the only winners, walking away with 1/3 of the money that was supposed to be used to vaccinate 3000 children.

We believe that if you are CAPABLE of paying for healthcare, then you should have to pay for it. We believe that we need to get the politicians and lawyers OUT of there as much as practically possible in order to stop draining HUGE amounts of money away from the actual delivery of health care. We believe that there are enough rich liberals out there to get together and donate their money to a fund that could assist those who can't afford to pay for their own health care. (Only kidding - us conservatives would donate as well). Consider this. Michael Moore could take the profits of Falsenheight 911, subtract what it cost him to make the movie, and maybe put a hundred grand or 2 in his bank account, and then personally pay for the healthcare of about 100,000 people for a year. Call Whoopie, Ben Afflict, Linda Rhonstat, and the rest of the gang. Do a show, buy people healthcare. Exactly how much money do you guys waste blasting Bush over healthcare, anyway? Drive the freaking cash down to the hospital and sit in the ER. Pay people's bills right there on the spot. How come nobody calls these Hollywood types out, anyway? Shoot, they could just pay for the whole darn healthcare system all by themselves without us, and STILL afford their cocaine and caviar. Why do we let them get away with bashing Bush without asking them to put their money where their mouths are? Why the hell does Michael Moore need to come after my little paycheck for the money? What am I supposed to do when I have to pay for my own father's medical bills? Go back to the government and beg for it just like everyone else, I guess. The point is, we should not screw up the entire healthcare system because a small percentage of the population can not afford it. We should optimize the healthcare system to make it the absolute most modern, best system it can be. It should be priced so that Americans who fall into the $20,000 - $60,000 a year salary range can afford it for their families. Some people will not be able to afford that, and it's up to the rest of us to help them because we want to, and because we can. To others, this cost will be extremely low, and I say oh well, good for them, the lucky rich bastards.

Faith based organizations are the way to go, simply because it is what they do. They help people. Our church has paid for several operations for people this year. Two of them weren't even members of our, or any church - they WERE athiests. I see them praying all the time now that they are healthy again. You really should see all of us right wingers whipping out the wallets when the Father announces "we will be passing the collection plate a second time today to help Mr. Johnson pay for his cancer surgery". It would bring a tear to your eye. Yet we get blasted because we really don't want to collect the money and send it to John Kerry so that he and his buddies can sit down and figure out if Mr. Johnson is a member of one of their "targeted" (see side rant in italics below) groups entitled to get that money. If he is, you can be sure that he would receive far les actual financial support than he got from the church. We just paid for the operation outright because he needed the help. I gave $30. He got every nickel of it. I'm happy about that. When I need an operation, they'll do the same for me. If I had sent $30 to DC for his healthcare, they might have given him $2 back.

Politicians want to control our lives, and they do it by limiting what we can spend, where we can spend it, and how we spend it. They also limit it by dividing us into little bitty groups that they HOPE will always feel depressed, downtrodden, victimized, and abused. Then they can come running into the room yelling "We're with the government, and we're here to help you.". Yes, they can. They created the problem.

Whenever you hear "targeted", substitute "no one" - it's a trick. They collect the money, keep it, and then tell everyone that they aren't in the "targeted" group. No one gets the money, and no one every realizes that no one fits the "target". Clinton's "targeted tax cut" would have been no tax cuts for anyone, but he would have just said, "they are there, you just don't qualify". We all think someone else is getting it, but no one is...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/01/04 04:55 AM
Is it just me or are the right-wingers here funnier than the liberals?


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/01/04 05:31 AM
I dunno, I guess I'm not in the targeted audience for republican humor.
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 04:10 AM
Great post, Michael A.

I have seen government funded healthcare first hand as a physician. The government funded health care system for the poor around here is called Passport. Passport pays me a relatively few dollars per month for each subscriber in my panel, no matter how many times I actually see them. I hate seeing these patients (who pay nothing out of their pockets) because they are the most demanding, time consuming patients in my practice, almost none of them come in for actual medical problems, and they think nothing of calling after hours for non-emergency complaints (such as needing their medication refilled).

The fact is that when you give somebody something because they're "entitled", they haven't earned it, and they don't treat it as their own. Look at just about any Government housing project in the country. They've become such hellholes that they're having to demolish them left and right.

One state (I forget which one and I lent out my source [John Stossel's "Give Me A Break"]) enacted a program where able bodied welfare recipients would have to work picking up trash by the side of the road in order to receive their check. This idea was opposed by liberal critics as being "slavery". The recipients of these welfare checks thought picking up trash was beneath them. There used to be a time when most people would rather work for a day's pay than to take "charity". But it's not "charity" any more, it's an "entitlement".

Insurance companies are also to blame, as are physicians who slowly by baby steps turned over control of the health care system in this country to insurance companies. Americans have been trained that they should have to spend no money out of their pockets for health care. I have people ask me for free sample medication because they don't want to pay their co-pay. People complain about paying a second $15 copay for a follow up visit, but do not flinch at spending $30 to get their oil changed.

In my opinion, most people should pay MORE for their day to day health care needs such as office visits and medications. That puts the economic incentive on the patient and the doctor to try to save money. I could actually prescribe the best medication for each patients condition and monetary circumsatance, not the one their insurance company prefers because Pharmaceutical company X pays them a kickback.

But I digress. Entitlements were enacted with the best of intentions, but they actually harm the country by fostering the victim mentality. Draconian legislation such as the Americans With Disabilities Act were also passed with the best of intentions, but actually harm the disabled because companies won't hire them for fear of being sued under the act. Trial lawyers say they are helping the little guy, but who really benefitted from the Tobacco lawsuits? Asbestos litigation? Suits against vaccine makers. Why the lawyers, of course. There are now only 3 companies in America that make vaccines, down from more than 10. Are we safer with only 3 companies making and researching vaccines?

By the way, I don't remember seeing "access to health care" enumerated in the Constitution as a basic right. So, no I don't think everybody has an absolute right to health care, but I think I have a right not to have to send checks to somebody who thinks picking up trash is beneath them. I think I have a right not to pay the salaries of millions of Government employees whose only job it is is to enforce thousands of regulations which actually stymie economic growth. And I think I have a right to live in a country where companies that make vaccines don't shut down because of fear of litigation.

Mark
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 04:28 AM
I don't think I have the brainpower to make much sense tonite but...

Handouts:

I didn't say there should be no gov programs for helping ppl in need... I just said in general entitlements are a BAD thing, we need less programs so we can make them more efficient and actually work in some fashion!

Kerry on the left/Healthcare:

I think I also said earlier that I did not agree with Bush on his perscription plan. That was definitely pandering to the left side of things. And since Kerry wants something even bigger that would be one of his *way left* ideals.

Kerry on Defense:

As far as Kerry trying to use his military service to get points on national defense, what a joke! What he did after his tour in 'nam and his voting record on military spending PROVES this man has no right or even a CLUE on national defense.

Bush being religious:

As far as the Bush religion thing goes... ya he probably shouldn't speak out on his relogion as much as he does (Regean was as religious or even more so than Bush but ya wouldn't nessasarily know that because he didn't go preaching it) but I don't think he forces it on any person. Just because the man disagree's with abortion and gay marriage doesn't mean he's forcing you to believe the same and go to church like he does. Those are the things he believes. I don't subscribe to any religion but I believe abortion is wrong in every way....

Stem Cell/Abortion:

As far as stem cell research goes, one could say in nazi germany we knew those jews were going to die in concentration camps anyway so why not experiment on them, to get something benifical out of their deaths. Before you cry that its not the same thing... I believe killing jews was bad in any form, killing an unborn human is wrong in any form as well.

Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 04:01 PM
Ditto all that, Doc.

Is there any concrete evidence linking vaccines to autism? Or was that relationship dreamed up by the trial lawyers? The parents swear it's the vaccines, but how the hell could they know that?

We've been innoculating our 11 mo. old, and will continue to do so for the public good. Our pediatrician (great guy) obviously thinks it's OK.

I read about the recent polio outbreak in Africa, where Muslim leaders banned vaccination programs in the belief that vaccinations are an anti-Islam Western plot. Apparently, they blame the vaccines for sterility and AIDS epidemics.

Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 04:19 PM
There is no scientifically proven link between vaccines and autism, or breast implants and autoimmune diseases, for that matter. Dow Corning was driven into bankruptcy because some people said their product caused disease, despite the lack of a scientifically proven link.

There have been a few problems with live polio virus causing polio in susceptible individuals, and pertussis used to cause seizures in rare instances, but both these problems have been resolved because of research and improvement in existing vaccines.

Mark
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 04:28 PM
Thanks, Doc, I feel better.

What's better Viagra or Levitra? JK, LOL, etc... Don't actually need one... really.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 04:44 PM
by the looks of your avatar, i think you are doing pretty good there bigwill!!

funny story.. a few years ago when one of my buddies graduated from college, we were having a party for him. now he is a young guy, 27 yrs old, and plenty healthy.. anyway, he had a young lady that was obviously going to be his companion for the evening, so his boss gave him a viagra pill kind of as a joke. well, my buddy took the pill once the evening died down and it was time for the late night activities to begin. now, as he tells the story, he dont know if it was the pill, the alcohol he drank, or a combination of the both, but he says after a few hours, the girl literally told him to get off her, cause she had had enough, and couldnt do it no more. now, if thats not a thumbs up review, then i dont know what is??

i aint trying to hyjack the politics thread, but the last post made me think of this story.. well, i guess if we were talking about slick willy, then i wouldnt be too far off the thread topic after all!!

bigjohn
Posted By: ScottA Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 09:07 PM
I have been sitting back reading this post for some time. I decided it's time to jump into the mix. Most of this talk about the healthcare system in the US is bullsh..t.

To preface, my wife and I are both professionals. I have a bachelor's degree and she has her masters. I work as a probation officer and my wife works for a major hospital in the area.

Back in February of this year, my 37 year old wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. Bam, hit like a ton of bricks. She began by getting a biopsy, followed by x-rays, bone scans and and many other tests. None cheap. Later came the first 4 rounds of chemo. 3 antinausea drugs by IV followed by 2 different chemo drugs at each treatment. Once again, not cheap. Actually more than a $1,000 per treatment. Following the 4 rounds of chemo came surgery. Total masectomy as well as samples of lymph nodes. With room, anesthesia, surgeon, etc, cost was over $20,000. After surgery comes 4 more rounds of chemo. The drug this time costs more than $5,000 per dose. Next comes reconstructive surgery. Not sure what that will cost yet. Add in costs of visits to Oncologist and Oncology surgeon as well as wigs due to hair loss and the total bill will be in excess of $100,000.

My point is this. My wife did not ask for this disease. Don't get me wrong, we are grateful for all the Dr's who are treating her, without them, I know what the outcome would be. However, the costs to us have been astronomical even with insurance. Thank goodness we do ok financially. But what about those who don't. What would their fate be.

I consider myself to be a little more liberal than conservative on most issues but not all. That being said, this country needs to do something about the healthcare system. Why should any lifesaving drug cost more than $5,000 per dose? Why should the doctor's have to get prior approval for treatments. My wife's white bloodcell count dropped so low she ended up in the emergency room. The Oncologist had to get approval to give her a drug (neurlasta) sp? to keep her count up after chemo? We as a country somehow need to make "good" medical care available to everyone, not just those who can afford it.

Sorry for the rant, but those who see a problem with healthcare for everyone, probably are not going through what my wife and I are right now. It's easy to sit back and make blanket statements about things without ever being in that situation. As I said, my wife works in the medical field and is paid very well for what she does. But if she was not, we would be in big trouble.




Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 09:16 PM
scotta- sorry for what you and your family is having to go through.

thank you for sharing your perspective. its sometimes hard to see 'the whole picture', unless you can see it through another mans eyes.

i hope that all will turn out well for you and your wife.

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 09:21 PM
I'm sorry to hear about all that calamity. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that health care can be expensive.

But effective cancer treatment was there for your wife. That is more than can be said for all of humanity that lived before the mid-point of the last century, or for the masses in the 3rd World.

We have it pretty damn good - even if it does cost us some cash to save our lives from illness and disease.
Posted By: ScottA Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 09:31 PM
BigWill,

I agree. I am greatful that the care is there for my wife. If not the outlook would be much more grim. My point is that it needs to be available to everyone, rich, poor, white, black. That is if you are a US citizen. I could not imagine what I would tell my 11 year old daughter, if we could not get the care needed for her mother.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 08/02/04 11:27 PM
Scott,

My mother went through that exact same list nearly 20 years ago. I hope that your wife started getting treatments early. My mother's condition was pretty far along before they discovered it.

In reply to:

Why should any lifesaving drug cost more than $5,000 per dose?


It shouldn't, that was precisely the point that I was trying to make. However, just like the live Polio vaccine that the Doc spoke about, 1 patient out of 1 million MAY be harmed by the use of the vaccine. When that 1 person comes along, they and their lawyer will be awarded with a lawsuit in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Guess who really pays these gigantic lawsuits? You and I do the next time we purchase the product or service. After the lawsuit, the insurance company will raise the rate, and guess what? The next dose will cost you $5500. The pharmaceutical certainly isn't going to take it out of their pockets. If they did, their PE ratio would go down, the stock price would fall, and the company would go out of business. Then you wouldn't get any dose at any price.

The court system is a snowball rolling down a mountain. Every year, the lawsuits get bigger and bigger and the cost of products and services goes up. This is NOT unique to the field of medicine. It cuts across all industries, and we all pay more than we need to for everything.

You also mentioned that the medical folks need to get approval for procedures. I think that is 100% Barbara Streisand as well. When is someone going to sue an insurance company (and their lawyers) for practicing medicine without a license?
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 01:39 AM
Maybe this is too simple then, but can't they just warn you at the hospital that the drug they are about to give you has a 1 in a million chance of killing you, and you have to sign something not to sue if it actually does? If I need whatever that drug is bad enough to get me through whatever health issue I am having, you get to the point that you are willing to try it regardless of the odds and shouldn't get to sue if it doesn't work...they are just trying to do whatever they can to save your life.

The only time I see the lawsuits coming in is in the gross malpractice cases where they give you something completely different from what they were supposed to and it does damage....even then, some of the payouts are just ridiculous.

Perhaps we need healthcare like auto insurance...full tort and limited tort at different prices, so the sue happy people pay more, but are covered with their full tort policy.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 02:51 AM
Could the solution be: Kill all the lawyers and burn down the law schools? Just kidding, I know a lawyer who ISN'T a scumbag.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 04:57 AM
Just another reason to NOT vote for Kerry (Edwards).

Posted By: KC_Mike Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 06:21 AM
I think the high cost of health care and prescription drugs is a crucial issue.

Pharmaceutical companies are out of control. They fund vacations/perks/etc. for doctors and surgeons to entice them into prescribing their drugs. To me, it is not ethical to practice such behavior.

Secondly, many of the drugs on the market are chemical versions of something that exist naturally in organic form (plants, etc.). The drugs could be made from the organic versions for far less than the chemical version....but the big companies would rather make a chemical version for two reasons. 1. They can't patent a plant. 2. They can make a chemical version and claim they spent millions on R&D and justify the hefty price for the drug.

Look at the cost of AIDS medications or any other medication that is crucial to saving life (chemo drugs, etc.) It seems the more life threatening the disease, the more expensive the drugs. It is this way because people will do whatever it takes to stay alive and the pharmeceutical companies exploit that fact. I mean, either pay what they require or die. It just isn't right.

My Father just had a stint put in one of his arteries that was partially blocked. The operation is common place these days...go in through the thigh and feed the stint to the blockage. The surgery lasted 45 minutes and the hospital stay was overnight and part of the next day. The bill was over $30,000. The largest portion was attributed to the cardiologist (surgeon fees & 'consultation fees'). I understand cardiologists work hectic schedules, went to school for 8 or more years, etc.; but I don't think they should be paid 15k for roughly an hours work and maybe an hour of consultation. No doubt, some of the high cost is attributed to the malpractice insurance the cardiologist has to pay for....which is another facet that needs tob e dealt with.

While I won't dispute that the US has the best medical technology and talent in the world, it is not reason enough to justify the high cost of health care.

All it takes is one bad accident, and you might find yourself financially burdened the rest of your life. I guess there is always bankruptcy for extreme situations; but that also indirectly raises the cost of healthcare as well.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 07:51 AM
In reply to:

As far as the Bush religion thing goes... ya he probably shouldn't speak out on his religion as much as he does (Regean was as religious or even more so than Bush but ya wouldn't nessasarily know that because he didn't go preaching it) but I don't think he forces it on any person. Just because the man disagree's with abortion and gay marriage doesn't mean he's forcing you to believe the same and go to church like he does. Those are the things he believes. I don't subscribe to any religion but I believe abortion is wrong in every way....



How can you say that he's not trying for force his beliefs on us. Dude...he's trying to have the constitution of the United States ammended. How much more forceful in his beliefs does he need to get before you wake up and realize what he's doing. Maybe the next item he wants to add to the constitution will effect you directly. I'll bet you'll sing a different tune then.

Grrrrrrrrr..........


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 04:57 PM
KC Mike, you make some valid points, but you also make a lot of assumptions which cannot be proven. Modern medicine has far surpassed what the witch doctors can do with their weeds.

Spiffnme, Bush's attempt to alter the Constitution to ban gay marriages was purely a political move. No doubt, he opposes gay marriages (as most Americans do), but it was an attempt to get the Democrats to either take a stand in favor of gay rights (and then get slammed at the polls for doing so) or abandon a far-left segment of their party. The Democrats chose the latter option.

In my opinion, the gov't should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. Issue civil union certificates and leave marriage and marriage ceremonies to the churches.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 05:27 PM
In reply to:

In my opinion, the gov't should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. Issue civil union certificates and leave marriage and marriage ceremonies to the churches.



Absolutely. It'll likely never happen though. "Marriage" is a religious institution. The government has no business being involved. All of the governmental rights, and benefits that come along with "marriage" should be provided to all committed couples, regardless of sexual orientation, and should be done so as "civil unions". If these couples want to have a religious ceremony they can do so and become "married".
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 05:31 PM
In reply to:

Pharmaceutical companies are out of control. They fund vacations/perks/etc. for doctors and surgeons to entice them into prescribing their drugs. To me, it is not ethical to practice such behavior.




This is false. There are no vacations or other expensive perks any more. There used to be, but they are a thing of the past. Occasionally they will offer a meal to accompany a sales presentation, but why shouldn't they? If I am going to commit some of my precious free time to them, why shouldn't I be compensated with a meal?

We have the strongest pharmaceurical industry in the world. Like it or not, the reason for that is that there is competition in the marketplace. The quest for profit in this case benefits us all. I hate it when people get all righteous about pharmaceutical companies engaging in activities that are acceptable from any other for profit corporation. Why is it unethical for pharmaceutical companies to offer promotional perks to customers? Because they make a necessary product? Hogwash! I would say that food, clothing, and shelter are much more important factors for preservation of life, but nobody complains about the promotional behaviors of Archer-Daniels-Midland. You think your congressman doesn't get perks?

It costs hendreds of millions of dollars to bring a drug to market, and a pharmaceutical company has only 17 years from the discovery of the compound (not 17 years on the market) in whichh to recoup their investment.

The reason pharmaceuticals cost more than natural compounds is one of law, not greed. In order to be a "drug", that is to claim the compound is effective in treating a given condition, studies must be done to prove safety and efficacy. These studies cost literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Who in their right mind would do hundreds of millions of dollars of research on a compound that is not patentable?

Dietary supplements may be cheaper than pharmaceuticals, but they are not regulated by any agency. They cannot claim to treat any condition, therefore they usually are marketed as substances which can "maintain (insert orgen here) health". No studies need to be done. Side effects are unknown. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe.

As to drugs for serious conditions costing more, well what's your life worth? If anything in this life should be expensive, it's a lifesaving drug. Why do people think nothing of spending $30,000 for a car, and balk at spending $1000 for a lifesaving drug? If you are dying and need an expensive drug, who should pay for it other than you? Why is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's lifesaving drug?

The answer is to scrap the FDA and let the marketplace regulate the cost of pharmaceuticals. Any unsafe drugs would be quickly identified and litigated out of existence (loser pays, of course to avoid frivoulous suits).

Mark
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 05:35 PM
I am a totally agnostic areligious person, I am not homophobic, but I am against gay marraige. This is not a religious issue. It is about redefining a term that has been in existence for thousands of years against the wishes of the majority of Americans.

I am not opposed to the idea of a sanctioned civil union between same sex individuals, but to call it a "marraige" is disingenuous. To say that opposing gay marraige is a religious issue is equally disingenuous.

Mark
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 06:00 PM
That was my point above. "Marriage" IS a religious institution. In the eyes of our government, it should not be. Civil unions for all - leave marriages for the church.

It's semantics. People have REALLY strong feelings about the word "marriage". Many, many people feel exactly as you do. They're totally fine with offering gays and lesbians "civil unions" which would come with all the rights and privilages of "marriage", they just won't let us call it "marriage". How can you explain that thought process? It's a word people - relax.


Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 06:13 PM
Here's a freaky website I found that is very anti-mixed marriage. It is speaking of whites and non-whites, but uses pretty much the same arguements as gay-marriage opponents. Kinda creepy. I guarantee 20 years from now people who are so anti-gay marriage now will seem as whacko as this guy does now.


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 06:19 PM
i am tore on that issue too.. i have no probs with gays and lesbians, more power to ya.. but once again, as with most issues in america now, it comes down to changing a 'standard', to adapt to a small number of americans. its just a word, marriage, but why are we freaking out so much over it?? i dont know, i wish i did. but i do think the word represents a unity of man and woman.. i mean, really, it has been that way for , oh lets see, FOREVER. and now, to accomidate a very small group of the american public, we may have to change that definition. are we who oppose it being petty, maybe. but do we have the right to defend what has been our norm forever, yes we do.

i really hate that this has to even be an issue. i believe in gay/lesbian rights. i think that a gay couple SHOULD be able to make life decisions for their mates, and be able to have joint insurance coverage, and have the same benefits and rights of a married couple.. but, are they married, no.. should we make it a 'civil union', hell yes, by all means.

this is where i have inner conflict over this subject. i truly believe homosexual couples should have the same rights as married couples.. but , i dont think they should be called married, or have a marriage, in the classic sense of the word.

does that make me a hypocrit?? i dont know.. but i know thats how i feel, and i hope no one is offended.

PS- i kinda compare it to no more praying at high school football games.. SHORT STORY- here in texas, we say(or used to) a prayer before the start of every game on the stadium loud speakers. a few years a go, an islamic family that had a son playing football in houston, was appaled that they had to say a prayer to a god that they didnt believe in, and went to the state courts. long story short, they made it a state law that it is illegal to have a public prayer at a football game, so we dont 'offend' anyone.. ??? hello, so we had to change out heritage and tradition during friday night lights, just so we dont offend a very small group of people. thats just not right to me.

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 06:35 PM
OK, time to steer things in a completely different direction (not that I haven't enjoyed the recent posts).

By now I'm sure you all heard about the recently heightened terror alert level and that it was based on information that pre-dated 9/11.

Ladies(?) and gentlemen, it's time to talk about The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I present you with exhibit A, Tom Ridge:



The Terror Alert system is completely counter-productive to its intended goals. Instead of encouraging U.S. citizens to prepare for possible attacks, it is slowly but surely desensitizing us to possible threats. Each time the terror alert level is raised and lowered, we go through a period of inconvenience and eye-rolling -- just yesterday, someone in my office building called security about a possile bomb because we had left a box outside our office for FedEx to pick up -- before returning to our regular lives.

The alert system is the single-most Orwellian device ever to come from the U.S. Govt.

Discuss.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 06:57 PM
BigJohn...what do you think of the idea of all couples...regardless of sexual orientation getting "civil union" licenses from the State, and being "married" only by a church? Does that protect your definition of the word "marriage". Or does your definition include the fact that Men and Women are "married" by the State? Curious.




Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 07:32 PM
i dont know craig, i never really thought of it like that. i reckon i wouldnt have any problem with it like how you are saying.. although, it still kinda goes back to what i was saying.. that would would still be a change made to accomodiate a small group.

i think for me, it becomes a bigger issue of the greater america having to change to accomidtate small interest groups. its happening everywhere, and it is dividing this country. everyone is forced, if you want to or not, to take a side and decide which side of the line you are gonna stand on.. republican or democrat, pro-choice or pro-life, church or state, paper or plastic, de-caf or regular.. ?? we are forced to make decisions that can be extremely mundane to overly complex, that defines what category you will be placed in.. bottom line is, i DONT wanna be in a category. i DONT wanna change what i do and say to appease a very small group that in the long run, will have no bearing on how the rest of my life will play out.

i aint trying to get up on a pedastel here, just stating my general discontent with the way our nation is going.. but, to get back to your original question.. i WOULD be willing to make the change to 'civil unions' and marriages being separate, if it would make it to where gay couples could receive the same benefits that my spouse and i get. OK.. ?

bigjohn
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 09:26 PM
In reply to:

i think for me, it becomes a bigger issue of the greater america having to change to accomidtate small interest groups.




You mean like the civil rights movement in the 1960's? In some states as late as 1967 blacks and whites weren't allowed to marry.


Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 09:30 PM
Here's an interesting article regarding the changes in marriage...

"To opponents of same-sex marriage, it seems so simple. Let's just preserve marriage the way it has always been.

"OK,'' says feminist biblical scholar Mary Ann Tolbert. "What is that?''

The fact is from issues of divorce, race, religion and the role and rights of the partners, the concept of marriage has always been in play. And it continues to be today, including in this country.

Many would be surprised to know that as recently as 1967 in many states it was illegal for a mixed race couple to be granted a marriage license. An even bigger surprise, given current debate over same sex marriages, is that when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of interracial marriage, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the "freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides in that individual.'' Note that Warren wrote "person,'' and refers to "persons'' -- not man or woman -- throughout the opinion.

So, when President Bush said yesterday that the country needed a constitutional amendment to beat back attempts to redefine marriage in this country, at least some legal experts suggested he was far too late. The institution of marriage has changed and morphed constantly through the years, and almost always to a hue and cry from those who worry about the structure of traditional marriage.

As the Massachusetts Supreme Court said in last year's ruling to allow same-sex marriage in that state, "alarms about the erosion of the 'natural order of marriage' were sounded over the demise of anti-miscegenation (mixed race marriage) laws, the expansion of rights of married women and the introduction of no-fault divorce.''

Or perhaps you would be safer going with the strict biblical definition. That gets a little tricky too.

"It is really much more complex in religious perspective than you might think,'' says Tolbert, the George Atkinson Professor for Biblical Studies at the Pacific School of Religion. "What the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife's slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.''

Tolbert, who is also the executive director for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry, points out that marriage didn't even become a sacrament of the church "until the 12th century. For the first 1,200 years (A.D.) in Europe there were civil unions by town or village government.''

Nor does the New Testament offer much help. In fact, by some selective readings it sounds as if the Bible has mixed views of marriage. As Tolbert says, Jesus says very little about marriage, and both he and Paul were single men. And Paul, at least, recommended chastity.

"Marriage is not a sin,'' says Paul in First Corinthians, "but it is better to be unmarried.''

"The Bible is an incredibly important sacred icon in our culture,'' says Tolbert. "But I just think a lot of people don't read it.''

Although same-sex marriage will be the subject of sermons and a source of debate in churches, the real battle as the president has framed it will be in the courts. His point, he says, is that "local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.''

If so, it won't be the first time.

The roles of the people in a civil union have changed dramatically over history, including the recent history of the United States. It begins in the 1700s and 1800s, when married woman actually lost many of their legal rights when they agreed to get married. After marriage, they were not allowed to own property, pay taxes or sign a contract. Any money women earned outside the home was to be turned over to their husbands.

"You go back to the early years of this country,'' says Joan Hollinger, a professor at Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley specializing in child welfare and family law, "and you find that the wife became a kind of possession of the husband." It was not until the latter half of the 19th century, she said, that married women reacquired the rights they had when they were single.

As recently as 1920, the states of Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and New Mexico hadn't changed their laws.

A far greater change in marriage law came in 1948, when California was the first state to make it legal for a couple of mixed race to be married. It took another 19 years for the U.S. Supreme Court to make the same ruling. So until 1967, in many states, a couple of mixed race could not get a marriage license, and if they went to another state and were married, when they returned home they could be arrested.

"When I tell my students that was in 1967,'' said Hollinger, "they sort of gasp.''

And if you think the commotion over at City Hall is something, Hollinger says you should have been in the South when attempts were being made to overturn the anti-miscegenation laws.

"I hear Gov. Schwarzenegger talking about riots,'' she says. "I was in Mississippi in 1964. Compared to that, this is a lovefest.'


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 09:51 PM
In reply to:

You mean like the civil rights movement in the 1960's?



OK, now wait.. lets not get overly dramatic here.. i would hardly call the civil rights movement a small interest group. thats kind of a stretch there craig.

thats not what i mean at all.. BLAH, man i just cant type out some big ole post about this subject. it would sound vague, and random. its not a specific thing i can put my finger on, but its there, and i think everyone feels it a bit.

its why that judge in georgia had to remove the plaque of the 10 commandements from the county courthouse.

its why the state of alabama had to remove the confederate colors from its state flag.

its why there has to be a warning on a cup of coffee that says "warning, coffee is hot".. DUH!!

its why we dont pray at texas high school football games anymore.

its why teachers, when assigining detention, have to assign the detention around the students schedule.

its why ross perot was ever considered for president?

its why we pay $2.25 a gallon for gas, when we have 800 billion gallons of it under an iceburg in alaska.

its why a rancher cant shoot a wild coyote while watching it attack his herd of sheep.

there is a huge range of stuff i am talking about, and trying to fit it on a single post is impossible.

craig, i believe that gay/lesbian life mates should have the same rights and benefits as a typical heterosexual married couple has. i am not arguing that point with you.

bigjohn





Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 09:54 PM
I understand your point, but I'd hardly call the GLBT community a small interest group either. We a good 5-10% of the population.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 10:01 PM
to be honest with you, i would love to get a real, accurate breakdown of exactly what the percentage of gay/lesbians there are in america. i think 10% would be a very high guesstimate.. i think 5% is a lot closer.. but, you also have to think.. everyone of those gay/lesbian citizens has moms,dads,sisters,brothers, nieces,nephews, friends, etc.. that are supporters of their cause. so i sgree, to call it a "small interest group" might have been a little off base on my part also.

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 11:07 PM
pmbuko, did you read the whole article? or just scan the top as the anti-US folks at Reuters hope?

Of course attacks are planned years in advance. The article also states that there was NEW info recived very recently.

Yeah, the threat level thing is stupid, but I would hardly consider it a threat to personal freedom. It's just a silly stupid thing to make the silly stupid people feel like the gov't has a handle on things.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/03/04 11:34 PM
bigjohn, if you're gonna be a liberal you gotta learn the party line. It sounds like you don't like the ACLU, PETA, SPCA, NAACP or any of the other special interest groups who wield power disproportionate to their numbers.

spiffnme, I think bigjohn, you and I have common ground here re gay "marriage". John and I think the same thing: civil unions OK, reserve "marriage" for the traditional union between a man and a woman. Wouldn't that be enough? Why does the term marriage need to be redefined? The article you quoted even stated that marriage as a religous ceremony is 800 years old. That seems like a lot of tradition to throw out the window. Atheist here, BTW.

IMO, for the gay and lesbian community to seek more than equal rights under the law shows that their real agenda is not equality, but to wave the homosexual banner. The civil union idea gives everybody the same rights without flaunting homosexuality in the faces of religous conservatives - or is that the point?




Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 12:30 AM
Ok.. Gay marraige.

First of all, like Spiff said "marraige" does come from religous institutions, and has always been the union of a man and a woman. It would serve the gay community well to abandon the term "marraige" altogether because religous people feel like their religion is being stolen, and will fight their cause even harder.

I believe that ANY 2 people should be allowed to register somewhere that would allow them to share insurance policies, and have access to the generic civil services that require a "family type" relationship to obtain. This should also apply to any 2 men or women that are friends, even if they aren't having sex. There is such a thing as platonic love.

The one thing I have to draw the line at is any kind of tax breaks for gay couples, regardless of the term used to describe the relationhip. The reason is simple. Reproduction. There is a high likelyhood that a normal couple will have a child after getting married. They will have 16-18 years of supporting a person that has no income, and should get a tax break to help them with that. After all, everyone born would cause someone to get that break, so it is fair. Gay couples can not have children, so a tax break is not necessary.

Other than that, whatever satifies their need for basic access to services, I'm for.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 12:40 AM
IM-deeply-humble-O, the whole hang up about civil union (CU) vs. marriage (M) is the idea of "separate but equal", which I believe is a red herring. The only thing making it "separate" is terminology. In the eyes of the law, CU = M. In the eyes of some people in the gay community, CU < M because M is not available to them. They won't give up until the term Marriage loses any sense of gender specificity. That is not possible.

Picture this scenario: It's the late 1800s and the Women's Suffrage Movement is in full swing. What if the opposition had allowed them the "right to cast ballots" in 1895 instead of "the right to vote", which actually happened in 1920. Would they have accepted it or refused and pressed on with their cause to get the exact word they wanted written into law?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 12:43 AM
Michael_A,

I thought getting married resulted in slightly less favorable tax status, not a break as you say. Also, currently you only get breaks per child, so your "potential for having children" logic doesn't really apply.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 01:19 AM
Gays can adopt. Straights don't always have children. If a sterile woman or man were to get married, should they not be allowed to file their taxes jointly? Heck, should they be allowed to marry at all?

That arguement has more holes than my socks.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 02:44 AM
"IM-deeply-humble-O, the whole hang up about civil union (CU) vs. marriage (M) is the idea of "separate but equal", which I believe is a red herring. The only thing making it "separate" is terminology. In the eyes of the law, CU = M. In the eyes of some people in the gay community, CU < M because M is not available to them. They won't give up until the term Marriage loses any sense of gender specificity. That is not possible."

That's what I meant to say.

A friend who doesn't want to get involved PM'd me with the notion that the gay community is seeking "approval" vs mere "acceptance". Civil union is pretty much an acceptance of one's personal choice to be gay, I reckon. But this whole thing seems like a whole lot of unnecessary fuss about where a guy wants to stick his pecker, but whatever...

The best tax year we ever had was our first year in our new house. We weren't married , filed separately, with her taking the std deduction and me taking the interest on the loan, etc... to itemize. Got married the next year, lost the nice tax situation, she stopped trying so hard to please me ("Every night is unrealistic" ), and the rest is wedded bliss.

Seems like you ought to have to pay more taxes if you have more kids. Like user fees. More kids = using more services.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 03:21 AM
As far as taxes go, this coming year we're going to be getting a bit screwed that we can't file jointly. The house is in Roger's name, but I make a lot more money than he does. He'll likely be able to write off far more in taxes than he paid. If we could file jointly we'd be getting a lot more of our tax dollars back. Plain and simple, we can't because we're gay. Doesn't seem fair.


Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 03:44 AM
Peter,

As a single guy, I have no direct experience with taxes, marraige, or children. I do, however, hear the guys at work talking about how with the deductions that they get for being married with 2 childen and a house, they pay very little taxes. I pay a ton of taxes, and have a bigger mortgage than most of them. There MUST be something to it. Maybe I need a new accountant?

Craig,

I said that straight couples were "likely" to have a child. Not that all of them would. Laws, rules, taxes, etc. need to be set up to deal the "average" citizen or household, Not all people will be within those categories.

With all due respect to you as a person, my belief is that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. It has nothing to do with you or your spouse. I believe that every child should be raised under the assumption that they will be normal in all repects, including being straight, unless something comes along and prevents that.

If environment is a factor in determining sexual orientation, then there is the possibility of doing harm to a child by placing it in an environment that could alter it's normal development. If we put normal children in gay households, and the environment makes them gay, then we have harmed that child.

If environment does not play a part into how that child develops sexually, then we have erred on the side of caution, with the best intentions of the child in mind.

If sexual orientation is genetic, or has some other incurable, medically valid cause, then environment would not be a factor and again, we have erred on the side of caution.

If there's even the slightest chance that environment plays a part in determining sexual orientation, then I do not think we should risk altering the normal development of a single child. All children deserve a chance at a normal life. We sholdn't put thm at a disadvantage from the get go.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 04:21 AM
I have a question,...

If its becomming the norm to change the way things are done for some ppl, why can't we just expand that to rest of the world. Hell women deserve the right to vote n such, I think we definitely need to liberate all women in the middle east. Hell they'd shoot you over there if ur gay, thats not right. We need to fix that as well.

Seriously, the gay marriage thing is possibly the hardest social issue since the civial rights movement. But I hardly would compare them apples to apples. Its just more different than similar IMO.

Now personally I also have no issues with any gay person, esp having the same rights as *married* couples do. But I do have a BIG concern on this issue because after 'marriage' is redefined, 'family' will be next. Tell me that the majority of social issues in our country couldn't be fixed by having a stronger home? I'm not saying two men can't raise a kid, but there IS a lot to be said by children being raised by the influence of a man AND a woman. There is just no denying that.

That is why I am personally torn on the gay marriage issue.

Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 04:37 AM
Anybody else getting uncomfortable with the gay marriage subject?

How about that psycho Kerry is married to? She looks, sounds and acts like a bag lady wearing Versace. Can you imagine Teresa Heinz as the First Lady?
I saw the real First Lady on the O'Reilly show tonight - now there is one wonderful, classy, intelligent, beautiful woman. I think Bush is smarter than folks give him credit for, but how did he score a great lady like that?
Speaking of O'Reilly, he seems to have toned down his act a little. Much more polite (except when some absolute moron gets on the show) than he was before. Thanks for getting me back into the FoxNews channel, guys. I had pretty much abandoned TV news.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 05:13 AM
In reply to:

I think Bush is smarter than folks give him credit for, but how did he score a great lady like that?




Money talks.




I kid! I kid!
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 11:49 AM
Yeah BigWill, It is a very uncomfortable topic to discuss. I think NOT discussing the tough topics causes more problems in the long run, though. One of my cousins is gay, and another recently "discovered" that he's bi right after his 40th birthday. Go figure. I love both of them to death, and they have been 2 of my favorite cousins forever. I've had this very discussion with Jimmy, and we agree on some points and not on others. He regularly calls me to discuss things when he feels like he can't talk to anyone else in the family.

For me the whole issue boils down to the fact that we should be able to come up with a way to accomodate the needs of the gay community without a.) screwing with current religous and social "norms", and b.) making people who object to a behavior, pay to propogate that behavior.

Now, a flat tax, or a national sales tax could take care of that aspect of it... Batter up!

Good day,
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 12:08 PM
A. She is a woman that searches out powerful men.

B. She was drunk!
Posted By: Radspecv Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 01:51 PM
Maybe Bush has 10 inches of swinging.....

Anyway, back to the "alternative lifestyle" topic. The company I work for offers all medical benefits to any employee's "domestic partner" as long as they've lived together for the past year. That seems like the best deal - the medical benefits with no marriage penaltywhen they do their taxes. On the tax note, what does everyone think about a flat tax? It seems like a good idea to me.

Pete
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 02:13 PM
i DO NOT agree with a flat tax. of course, this whole tax issue varies with each person, with the main dividing line being 'how much you make'. here is my reasoning.

lets say the flat tax rate is set at 10%.. ok, if you have a guy that makes $1000 bucks, he gets $100 deducted for taxes, and that only leaves him with $900 bucks.. thats not a lot of money.. now, lets say a guy makes $1 million bucks.. he deducts $100,000 in taxes, that still leaves him $900,000 bucks.. thats plenty.

my point being that if you make a lot, and your taxes are higher, you are STILL gonna have a lot when its all said and done. it truly makes me sick to see the sheer greed and self indulgent lifestyles of the extremely rich, and then for them to complain about their taxes. just eat some more caviar, and shut the f*ck up!!

oops, its not like i feel strongly about this or nothing!!

bigjohn
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 02:40 PM
BigJohn;

The flaw in your argument is that is that more often than not under the present system the guy making a million dollars pays LESS than 100k in taxes because of the loopholes inherent in the system. Also, most proponents of the flat tax (myself included) also recommend the institution of a national sales tax (for non-essentials, food, clothing, etc. would be exempt) to tax consumption. This would make sure that that millionare paid his share while spending his leftover 900k, and would encourage saving.

A flat tax + national sales tax or VAT would do a lot to cure the ills in this country, as would limiting government spending to 20% of GNP. Did you know that right now government spending is about 40% of GNP? That is a huge number.

Mark
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 04:42 PM
In reply to:

With all due respect to you as a person, my belief is that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.



Clearly you don't think I'm due much respect.

In reply to:

If we put normal children in gay households, and the environment makes them gay, then we have harmed that child.



That's assuming that being gay is harmful/wrong. The only harmful thing about being gay is having people like yourself tell you your entire life that there's something wrong with you.
In reply to:

or has some other incurable, medically valid cause...



Does being attracted to and falling in love with a person of the opposite sex also have a "incurable, medically valid cause"?





Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 05:10 PM
i have a female cousin on my moms side of the family who is gay, and my uncle on my dads side is gay. my wife also has an aunt that is gay. to be honest, there is no way you could look at these people and not think that they were born gay. i firmly believe that most people that are gay, are just born that way. it is in their person, its not a choice they make. if i had to put it to a ratio, i would say 95% of the gay community were born that way, and the other 5% got there thru sexual experimentation. either way, i dont think it makes them any more, or less of a person than me, it just makes them different. and thats where the stigma is with heterosexuals. its not the act, its more of the unknown, or lack of understanding, that makes people uneasy when dealing with gays/lesbians.

i dont think a child in a gay home is destined to grow up gay. but i will acknowledge that a child in that environment, will have to deal with situations and questions that a child in a heterosexual home would not have to deal with. regardless, gay or not, a good parental unit(man/woman, man/man, woman/woman) should be able to talk to, and explain things to their kids. teaching tolerance begins at home!!

bigjohn




Posted By: Radspecv Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 05:18 PM
I think there have been studies that have determined that homosexuality cna be caused by hormones being lacking during fetal development i.e. if a boy doesn't get enough testosterone at a certain phase he'll end up gay. It seems to me that the level/amounts missing determine just how gay - from bi-curious gay to Jack McFarland gay. This is just something I heard so I don't know if it's true adn I can't quote the source.

My take - anyone who will provide a good, nuturing home for a child should be allowed to have one. There are plenty of hetero couples that are complete trailer-trash, welfare-aponging losers that don't deserve kids and they get as many as they want. It's a bunch of sh!t.

An interesting note - I have a friend (hetero) who has a twin brother that is gay. I don't think environment had much to do with that one, since they grew up together. Although he spent some time in South America, where they have some kind of ball-grabbing custon.

Pete
Posted By: pablo Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 06:11 PM
"I think there have been studies that have determined that homosexuality cna be caused by hormones being lacking during fetal development i.e. if a boy doesn't get enough testosterone at a certain phase he'll end up gay. "

To be honest, I think that testosterone stuff is what's gotten me into more trouble than just about anything else over the years.Thank god for those who have less of it to make up & balance out us dudes.

Really I agree with Bigjohn on the tolerence thing - it has to start at the home. From what I can tell it would be awfully difficult for everyone to agree upon what constitutes the ideal / "normal" family in which to raise kids. IMO the key is having 2 loving people that are able to show & share that love with their kids. If you don't have that, it's not a ideal / "normal" family, as least in my view. How do you legislate that ?
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 11:12 PM
I think the best tax system would be to figure out how much money the government needs for the year, divide it by the number of citizens over age 18, and send us a bill.

It would probably end up being $32 a person. I don't feel like looking up the actual numbers right now, but it might be interesting to figure out sometime.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 11:25 PM
Not a bad idea. Would be much better than borrowing from China to fund the recent tax refund checks.
Posted By: SpockTheater Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 11:28 PM
Ok guys, I must say that this is BY FAR the best Political thread I’ve ever had the absolute joy of reading. *applauds to all* Another message board that I read http://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum has now banned political discussions due to the immature idiots there. Anyway, being a Conservative, over-opinionated Southern boy (without the accent) I just can’t keep it too myself any longer. Now did I just stereotype myself? *scratches head*

Well, after reading most of all the posts, up to the gay marriage discussions, which is next, I wanted to add the Africa talks. I’ve now reached the conclusion that the “socially aware” media who knows all is feeding us the Iraq feast, while the real party is (not a flying one for any Douglas Adams fans) going on in Africa. I’ve been reading over the past couple of weeks about what’s going on in Darfur, Sudan and it’s quite sickening. As usual, it’s the same Muslims vs. non-Muslims (Christians perhaps) activity. One million innocent, trying to survive, people have left their own homes so they don’t have to have their daughters and wives raped for 4 – 6 hours at a time by up to 6 different men or be one of the 50,000+ (UN latest estimate) killed since this started last year. Also the Arab militias, called Janjaweed are keeping foreign aid from reaching the starving people. The irony is that the UN is just sitting around pondering the definition of the word “genocide” instead of actually doing anything about it. (nothing new there) The US has basically said, “keep this up and you’ll get a big spankin’”. I’m glad to see that we are taking a stand against this atrocity. In terms of the big picture, this seems to be another phase in our “War on Terror” and if anyone feels that this isn’t terrorism, maybe they should go live there and see if they survive.

Sadly however, to me Africa can seem like a bit of a lost cause sometimes. Since now they are protesting our word in the ordeal and deny that they have a problem. Also given the fact that they believe that a woman canNOT get pregnant from being raped and that a raped woman is now “unclean” and can’t be taken back her “husband”. Add these to 2x6spds’s insightful reports. The harsh reality to face is that the problem here is solely a corrupt government protecting their power and an ignorant society that’s blind to it. Also, even if we do something about it, the terrorist groups will still hate the US just for our existence alone. Honestly the only solution to this is to educate the African population and empower them to revolt against their own government with a civil war. Sad resolution, but sometimes war is an unavoidable remedy. Sorry if this seems to be last week’s news, but I just had to rant for a bit. Carry on.

PS - 2x6spd, I might not agree with you about expensive speaker cables, but WOW!! I’ll discuss politics with you any day of the week.

Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/04/04 11:44 PM
Why do you even need the flat tax? Just the national sales tax based on what we spend, and we wouldn't have to do taxes every year any more either

Only issue I see there is any "black market" that people buy and sell while avoiding the national sales tax. It would have to be a significant chunk of $ if this was the only way for govt. to get income.

BTW...I don't even know that I agree with this idea, I just came up with it as reading through this stuff. I would have to think about it a little more to determine what I thought would work best.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 02:59 AM
WOW, I step away to have a baby and look where this thread goes….gotta love it. Yes, I now have a beautiful baby girl named Alexandra. I can’t stop staring at her….completely enamored with her.

OK….let’s dig in while her and the wife are sleeping:

1. Disgust with ‘the rich’ - I find it interesting to hear everyone’s disgust of the rich. Yes, I too roll my eyes at the utter excess that I see driving around here in Atlanta or when watching Cribs or other shows of the like. However, I don’t have the resentment that I hear in many people’s opinions. I’m not sure if this stems from jealousy or that sense of entitlement thing that I was preaching about earlier in this thread. Regardless, I think people need to stop and realize that ‘the rich’ are a necessary component of a capitalist society. Our system is arranged around the concept of innovation and determination to obtain wealth. Everything that we do is to make money. Look at what we now have thanks to that search for wealth – railroads, oil wells/refineries, automobiles, computers, pharmaceuticals, radiology, vaccinations, Axiom speakers, Velcro, air travel, mass transit, skyscrapers, television, refrigeration, the Internet, the telephone, the cell phone……The list is never-ending. All of these inventions came about because someone recognized a need in society and made the effort to meet that need, which, in turn resulted in the need being met and their acquisition of wealth. You may want to hate these people, but they are the ones that are responsible for this country being the world power that it is today. You may want to hate the “Robber Barons”, but to do so is irresponsible. Bill Gates may seem like a money-grubbing fiend worthy of hatred, but his contributions to this countries economy are beyond description. Just take a look at what you are typing on right now.

2. Kerry – I’m getting pretty damned tired of hearing about his service in Vietnam. Let me preface that I think that questioning anyone’s service in the armed forces is generally inappropriate unless one has served. That being said, Kerry has opened up the door by using his service as the support structure for his campaign. We are continually pounded by the message the service record of this war hero makes him appropriate to serve as the Commander and Chief of this nation. The problem I find with this comes when you do a little research about Kerry’s actual war record. From what I have read in accounts from swiftboat captains that served with Kerry, the incidents for which he received his awards are definitely questionable, consisting of superficial wounds and exaggerated situations. No matter how much the dems want to paint that group (www.swiftvets.com) as a bunch of partisan henchman, I find it hard to believe a man that takes a video recorder into combat to reenact combat activities and mock interviews over the bulk of his fellow swiftboat captains that dispute his war record and his readiness for the role of President. Kerry did whatever it took, including going over the heads of his superiors, to obtain the necessary medals to guarantee his rapid departure from Vietnam and his future role in politics.

3. Taxes & “Fair Share” – I love it when this comes up. Democrats want the rich to pay their “fair share” of the taxes. They will, however, never acknowledge the well-known statistics that show that the top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of all taxes….top 50% of wage-earners pay over 95% of all taxes. To do so would have to acknowledge the fact that they are paying the entire tab. Like those merry days of ‘ole, the rich are robbed to pay the poor. At the tip of a gun, the government takes 5 months of your pay to fund it’s racket, which continues to fuel unending beurocratic entitlement programs that were well-intended, but have become a scourge on our society by creating a class of people latched to the nipple of the government.

4. Mark – Great to see another person inspired by John Stossel’s book. What a wonderful book…..really peels back the onion to show you how really screwed up the system is and how truly brainwashed many Americans are.

5. Healthcare positions – Kerry is swinging around the bait to the entitlement crowd promising the same healthcare to all citizens that is enjoyed by the members of Congress. Man, I got cold sweats when I heard that. He finally said it…..he is promoting socialized medicine. Equal healthcare for all. How the hell does he think he is going to fund this…..with the tax-cut roll-backs?…wrong. He’s going to do so by raising taxes on the middle and upper class, which translates to everyone. So, again, my paycheck that I work damned hard for gets scalped to fund the healthcare of those that have made a choice not to pursue their education and the resulting higher paying jobs. Should I get cheaper healthcare than they do?…you’re damn right I should. I work my butt off for my company and they pay a ton of money to the insurance carriers that provide that care to me. As others have said, affordable healthcare is not a guarantee in society. It’s a luxury that is earned by those willing to pull their own weight in society. For everyone else, there are safety nets to provide for them until they decide to move ahead. Man, that sounds cold, but it’s how I feel. People like my own damn Mom think they are owed quality healthcare when they make the choice to piss away their savings and neglect their responsibility to make their own way in society.

6. Stem Cell Research – People need to get over this notion that people will start terminating pregnancy for this research. That termination will happen no matter what. The question is whether or not the idea of offending the beliefs of one group is worth the greater good of humanity….the potential medical breakthrough that could drastically affect the health of millions of people worldwide.

7. Gay Marriage – Man, I got scared for this thread when this topic came up. This issue above many will often fuel argument and polarization. My personal view is in line with a few of you that have discussed the idea of separation of legal unions and the religious concept of marriage. This is hard for many religious people to accept, but marriage is a legal union in the eyes of the law, one that guarantees a set of rights and responsibilities. In this context, to deny this right to gay couple is discrimination, pure and simple…as much as past laws denying interracial marriage. It’s another example of religion infringing into the function of law and the state and our country is so damn homophobic that they won’t listen to reason and accept their culpability in this injustice.

8. Homosexuality – First of all, I find it so frustrating to hear people refer to homosexuality as a matter of choice. Does anyone honestly think that anyone in their right mind would choose to be gay?….choose to be the target of such animosity and discrimination?…choose to be shunned in the eyes of so many people? It makes absolutely no sense. There are too many stories of people growing up in the same environment, yet maintaining different sexual dispositions. The problem is that many refuse to acknowledge this because it would mean that their religious beliefs and teaching might be flawed.

9. Homosexuals and Adoption – Let’s get something straight, us straight people haven’t really proven our mastery of the act of raising children and maintaining healthy households….at least not enough to caste stones at gay couples. We continue to watch and sometimes celebrate the birth of babies to ignorant 17 year olds and welfare families that can’t understand the concept of birth control, yet we want to deny a family of two loving people willing to adopt and raise a child that may otherwise grow up in foster care, etc.

10. Infringing on established traditions – Man, I get tired of this argument. It’s been used throughout history to justify discrimination, injustice, and intolerance. Down here in Georgia, the Flaggots (Neil Bortz’s catch-phrase) come out in droves every time the issue of the confederate flag comes up. They chant the usual cries of tradition and are unwilling to admit that the flag is disrespectful to the incredibly large population of African-Americans here in Georgia. They mask their racist intent under the disguise of concern for tradition….too bad the flag was only adopted in the last 50 or so years as a protest to the federal desegregation movement.

11. Infringing on Liberties – I think that we as a people have forgotten that the purpose of government is to protect the life and liberty of its people. When you apply that tenet to many of these issues, you have to admit that government power is abused to deny the rights and liberties of others. Gay marriage does not affect anyone’s liberties except those that you would deny that right. Everyone else is simply using government power to oppress others. Some reading this will roll their eyes saying that I’m one of those ‘legalize pot libertarians’. Before you do so, please tell me how someone’s use of marijuana affects your liberty? It doesn’t. Any issues concerning driving, workplace, etc are legal issues just like DUI. The act that infringes on the rights of others is what should be illegal, not the one that doesn’t. Otherwise, alcohol should be illegal. These types of infractions are all over the place. We have become so government-happy that we have allowed it to be used to infringe on the rights and liberties that it is supposed to protect.

12. Flat Tax – Great Idea!!! Our tax structure is in dire need of an overhaul. Plus, we could really get everyone paying their “fair share”.

I’m sure that I’ve pissed a few people off by now….sorry, sleep deprivation has washed away all the sugarcoating.

OK….off to bed. The baby is asleep for now, so need to catch what little sleep I can.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 07:13 AM
Pissed someone off? I thought you were doing a nose dive with #1, but you pulled out of it quickly. You make complete sense.

The only problem I have with #1 is that I think you misunderstand the disgust some people have. I might not agree with some of Bill Gates' business practices. but he certainly worked hard to get where he is. I admire self-made men and women. The people that disgust me are the current flock of child millionaires who flaunt their money but contribute absolutely zero to society. Take Paris Hilton, for example. People like her should have to pay a "waste of human flesh tax"... Ok, so that's a bit overboard... I didn't really mean it -- but then again, I didn't edit it out, either.


Oh, and congrats on the baby!!! I hope my second (whenever the time comes) will be a girl.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 07:30 AM
I'll definitely have to agree with you on this one. The stupidity of some of those MTV debutantes is mindblowing....or in Paris' case... something else. The Hilfigger girl on that MTV show defined self-centered ignorant prima donna.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 07:31 AM
Wow Turbo, on the whole you make some excellent points.

With regards to #2, while I do agree Kerry has been a bit too eager with the Vietnam card, apparently Kerry's videotapes from Vietnam are less reenactments as they are just simple journals of the places the battles took place. I'm searching for the link (knew I should've bookmarked it!), but a journalist who initially criticized Kerry for reenacting battles later viewed over 40 hours of those videotapes and came to the conclusion that it was more of a sort of postcard "I was here" journal not uncommon with soldiers at the time, with little reenactment or Kerry playing the hero. Dammit I need to find that link.

I completely agree with you on points 6 through 11. Well said.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 07:37 AM
Great post, and congrats on the little one! Just a quick response to your excellent points.

1) disgust with the rich - My only issue with the super rich is when they whine about paying so much taxes.

2) Kerry/Vietnam - I think the only reason his Vietnam service is being crammed down our throats (I too am tired of hearing it) is because one of the only issues in which Kerry polls lower than Bush is in the roll as a military leader.

3) I'd like to see some sources behind those numbers.

4) I need to pick that book up.

5) Healthcare - OK...we kind of disagree on this one. I don't personally think good healthcare should be a luxury of the well off,

6) Yep...and even calling it a pregnancy is pushing it. This is research that should be fully supported.

7) I too was worried, but I think we all handled ourselves very well. Needless to say I agree with you 100%, Can I tell you how much those Fox "reality" shows like "Who wants to Marry a Millionare" piss me off? It's the biggest slap in the face you can imagine. Yeah...YOU can't get married, but we'll have a game show and have two complete strangers get hitched because he's rich. GRRRRRRR...

8) Again...100% agreement. Coming out was very stressfull, as I didn't know how my friends and family would react. Thankfully my family is cool, and I clearly know how to choose friends well. Not everyone is so lucky though. Too suggest I, or anyone else "chose" to be gay is ridiculous.

9) Again...100% agreement.

10) This is getting tedious...again we're in agreement.

11) Yep again...and I too believe drugs should be legalized. Honestly...for those of you who do NOT use drugs, is it because they're illegal? Doubtful. All you have to do is look at the days of Prohibition, and look at all the crime involved in bootlegging and see that the "war on drugs" is pretty much the same exact thing. Legalize the damn things, tax the [censored] out of them, and require a doctor's prescription to get them. It'll eliminate a HUGE amount of crime, get LOT's of addicts into rehab programs, and raise a TON of revenue for the government.

12) Flat tax...hmmm...I'm on the fence on this one. On the surface it seems like a really logical idea, but I'd need to know some more info before I could fully support it.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 02:03 PM
I still have do disagree with you about the rich whining about paying more taxes. Why shouldn't they? They pay the bulk of them....plain and simple. It probably wouldn't be so hard for them to pallet if it weren't for all of the rampant abuse that they constantly hear about. I think that everyone wants to help his fellow man to a degree, but it is really hard to swallow paying so much damn taxes and watching the government piss it all away.

Here are some links:
Fair Tax Site
Tax Distribution Stats

It sounds like we are not going to fully agree on healthcare availability. I would just ask that you be careful with classifying good healthcare with luxuries. Don't forget that people's healthcare is funded out of their own paychecks, both in direct contributions and by employer contributions, which are in turn a part of their pay package. It's not a luxury....it's earned. That's the key word...."earned"...people advocating socialized medicine want to give affordable healthcare to all. When you pull back the rhetoric, you will see that what they want is for the paying taxpayer to subsidize the healthcare of the needy. That's not necessarily a problem if we are talking about basic care. However, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that the American taxpayer wants to make sure that those not paying taxes don't have to pay more than $5 for a copay....especially when they'll spend a hell of a lot more than that for a gameboy for their kid or a set of chrome rims for their tires.

Drug War - It's a complete joke. We waste billions on it and have not reduced the influx of drugs into this country. We never will. Like you said, legalize it and then tax it. Like cigarettes and alcohol, people will still pay for it.

OK...baby is finally asleep again. I'm off to take a cat-nap.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 03:29 PM
I'm reading the fair tax page...specifically the FAQ section. Some issues it raises.

1. I could potentially see this generating even some extra income, since all of the tourists that come to the US would be subject to this consumption tax, where they are not taxed by us now. By the same token, this could cause some of those countries to get upset with us and/or reduce tourism in the US. I wouldn't be excited about being taxed at 23% in another country after already paying my income taxes over here.

2. At one point it said taxes on food and such aren't exempt to prevent loopholes from being developed later, but then it goes on to say in #12 "money to build job-creating factories, finance research and development to create new products, or fund charitable activities " isn't this the type of exemption they were trying to avoid.

Ok number 12 in the list is as far as I've made it. I've got to get back to work...I'll have to read the rest later and add another post if needed.
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 08:04 PM
My opinion on the gay couples having children isn't completely formed yet. There are lots of people who in my opinion shouldn't have children, including teenagers, single women, and those that can't afford them. It seems that our creator (whoever or whatever that is...I don't believe in any commonly accepted concept of "God") designed us so that male and female individuals are required to produce a child for a reason. That reason is that male and female role models are necessary, or at least desirable, for proper child development. That said, I really do not have a problem with gay couples adopting children, because I have to believe that, although a two parent household with male and female role models is optimal, that two loving same sex parents are preferable to foster care or a single parent household.

On the other hand, lesbian couples conceiving with a turkey baster and some sperm (and couldn't Melissa Ethridge found a better donor than a short, fat, bald drug addict?) just doesn't feel right to me, but I can't say why. Maybe it's because there are so many two-sex couples who desparately want children, but can't have them.

Mark
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 08:46 PM
In reply to:

It seems that our creator (whoever or whatever that is...I don't believe in any commonly accepted concept of "God") designed us so that male and female individuals are required to produce a child for a reason.




Required?


Posted By: SpockTheater Re: OT: politics - 08/05/04 08:51 PM
I think he means producing a child requires a male and a female. Naturally speaking of course.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/06/04 12:48 AM
I'm gonna nitpick here, even though I pretty much agree with what you're saying.

In reply to:

It seems that our creator (whoever or whatever that is...I don't believe in any commonly accepted concept of "God") designed us so that male and female individuals are required to produce a child for a reason. That reason is that male and female role models are necessary, or at least desirable, for proper child development.


I happen to believe in evolution -- and whether or not that evolution was influenced or set in motion by outside "powers" is immaterial. I think you're placing the cart before the horse here -- or maybe this is a chicken vs. egg thing.

I think that the "male and female role model" idea is completely dependent on the historical fact that it used to take a male and female and an act of coitus to produce a child. In this modern day of sperm donors and artificial / in vitro insemination, this is no longer the case.

In fact, because it's impossible for a gay couple to accidentally conceive, the ones who do decide to have children have gone through the lengthy thought process and are better prepared to be parents than many hetero couples who just give it the ol' college try.
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 08/06/04 03:53 AM
To clarify: By "Our Creator" I could mean the summation of natural laws and forces that shaped human evolution. I also believe in evolution, and evolution designed us so that it takes a male and a female to conceive a child. Do children who grow up in a household with two parents of the same sex develop the same as children who have two different sex parents? I don't know the answer to that question. I do feel that children who grow up in single parent households without a male role model suffer from this lack. They may never learn how how men are supposed to relate to women without a father to learn from. Might then the lack of a female role model handicap a child being raised by 2 men? I do not know the answer to this question, but until I do, I am less than totally comfortable with same sex couples rearing children. If it could be shown that children of same sex couples were no different that children of two sex couples, then I would have no objection to the adoption of children by gay couples. My opinion is subject to change-if there is any research that sheds light on this question, I would be happy to look at it.

In reply to:

In fact, because it's impossible for a gay couple to accidentally conceive, the ones who do decide to have children have gone through the lengthy thought process and are better prepared to be parents than many hetero couples who just give it the ol' college try.




That is a good point. I readily concede that a gay couple, motivated enough to go through the process of adopting a child, will be better parents than many women and couples that have babies the old fashioned way. You can't stop them from having babies, so I guess we shouldn't stop gay couples from having babies. I just have lingering doubts that a household without role models of both sexes is as good as one that has both.

Mark
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/06/04 04:49 AM
Y'all been at it while I was vacationing.

Can't argue with anything the doc says.

A flat income tax rate is fair. I don't see how it could get more fair than that. Sales taxes are not fair, it can be argued, because the poor and middle class end up paying a greater percentage of their income on the tax than do the wealthy.

All the class warfare, the loathing of the rich, is ugly.

Old money - families that do nothing to earn their riches but wait for dad to die - is a little discouraging to us commoners who must make our own ways in life. But what are you gonna do, steal the cash from them with inheritance taxes?

All the newly rich - people who got lucky, or struck it rich with a particular idea or skill, is what this country is all about. We all dream about hitting it big and telling the boss to f**k off, don't we? But remember, for every one of those success stories there are thousands of failures. People who invested everything they had in their little businesses, or in their athletic or performing arts careers and failed. Why be vindictive toward those who have succeeded? It's just wrong if you ask me.

Speaking of wrongs - I just came back from the horse track at Del Mar. The dollar I take up to the window was taxed when I earned it, taxed when I bet it, and taxed again if I happen to get lucky. The windfall tax is as wrong as the death tax, IMO.

Lastly, though I have only one very young kid, it seems to me that job one in parenting is making the little guy feel loved. We've all seen plenty of hetero couples fail to do even that. Gay couples are obviously disadvantaged, but kids are much more resilient (and stubborn) than we give them credit for. The preacher's daughter becomes a whore and the drug addicts' kid becomes a doctor.

Spiffnme, if you were raising an adoptive son would you encourage him to be gay, straight or neither?
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/06/04 05:52 AM
In reply to:

Spiffnme, if you were raising an adoptive son would you encourage him to be gay, straight or neither?




There's no encouraging needed. As you grow up you'll be attracted to men, women, or both. Did any of you here need encouraging to be attracted to girls or boys when you grew up? I really doubt it. Hormones are far to strong for that.

I would just be happy and excited that he was able to find someone he loved and who loved him back. It wouldn't matter in the least what sex his mate was.

A friend of mine who is a devout athiest, has a theory that homosexuality is part of evolution. His theory is that it's in the best interest of the group as a whole to have some members not procreate. As a primative species he feels that having the few extra "gay aunts and uncles" around could contribute to the group as a whole without the burden of rearing their own children. Just his theory. I'd never heard it before. But it does have it's merits.

I realize that will get the anti-gay adoption people thinking...but please realize, were not exactly living in caves and hunting our food with spears anymore either.






Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/06/04 11:40 AM
Read up on the "fair tax" version of the flat sales tax from the link provided earlier. The FAQ give a lot of details. It is still a progressive tax, since the first portion of everyone's spending is not taxed.

I'm not quite sure where all the money is coming from though, since it points out all the ways people save...is it just the broad base that catches everyone that brings in enough revenue to equal what the govt. gets now?
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 08/06/04 11:53 AM
In reply to:

...but please realize, were not exactly living in caves and hunting our food with spears anymore either.


Obviously he's never seen my apartment or eaten a meal I've cooked.


Posted By: FordPrefect Re: OT: politics - 08/06/04 06:26 PM
time for a little humour.....

In reply to:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."




President Bush at a signing ceremony for the Department of Defense's 2005 Appropriations Act. No one in Bush's audience of military brass or Pentagon chiefs reacted.

It's the fact that no one reacted that brings a smile to my face.


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/06/04 06:29 PM
i saw that on letterman last night.. your right, he didnt flinch, and neither did anyone else..

i wonder if our enemies are still using "strategery". ?

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/06/04 07:35 PM
I read up on the sales tax idea. Couldn't really find out definitively what the plan is, but it smells fishy. In EVERY example of personal income and tax rates they analyzed, the amount paid in taxes went down. How can that be possible and still maintain the gov't's current funding levels? There is more to that than what they're showing - I ain't buying it.

The second link that Turbodog provided was very interesting, however. If the numbers from the budget office are correct in that table then it appears the liberal notion of the top 1% having 90% of the wealth is erroneous (at least the income levels don't reflect that - maybe there are some other numbers that take into account real property).

Spiff, of course I knew you wouldn't encourage a son to be gay. I forget what I was driving at; I may have been drinking last night, but I can't be certain.

I've always struggled with the "homosexuality is a genetic trait" argument because the gay gene would seem to be doomed in any organism carrying it due to the non-reproducing nature of that organism. Your friend's argument does supply a reason for the existence of a agy recessive gene, but that is opening up a huge can of worms (That can of worms being the notion that behaviors are a product of genetic predisposition. We could basically abandon all personal responsibility for our behaviors and blame our genetic make-up. It could also imply that cultural differences between races are the product of different genetic tendencies). Regardless, the human genome project will likely one day be able to substantiate or refute that belief.

I have no proof, but I would venture that for many homosexuals the root cause was a difficulty in the reconciliation of growing sexual desires with social norms regarding sexual behavior. I would also venture that such difficulty is the cause of other "deviations" (not making a judgement, I just mean deviation from the norm).
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/07/04 02:08 AM
I agree, and would have some questions about the "fair tax" as well. The part about taxes going down for everyone was a question for me too. I don't know if they expect the broader tax base to make up for this or what. Either someone is paying more, or just more people are paying...they are making up that $ somehow. I posted a couple of other things earlier in the thread that I would have questions about as well before I could support such a tax plan fully. I do like the idea of getting rid of/simplifying the current screwed up tax code though.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 04:57 AM
So...

What's everyone's take on the Swiftboat Vets add. (I heard bits and peices of this almost a year ago)

Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 07:26 AM
It might be interesting to note that this group once tried to claim that Kerry's service records were doctored and that he never actually served in Vietnam.

I think it's a blatant political move involving a lot of lies. None of these guys served on the same boat as Kerry (here is some good info about the opinions of those who did serve under Kerry on his boat), and they all admit that on the day of the action that lead to Kerry receiving the Silver Star, they were at least 50 yards away from Kerry's boat. One of the guys who claimed to be the doctor who treated Kerry's wound later admitted that he wasn't a doctor at the time and only briefly saw the wounds, didn't treat them. One of Kerry's superiors later retracted his statement that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star. Actually, there is one guy who served with Kerry and doesn't like him, but draw your own conclusions.

Oh, and here's some lovely info on Jerome Corsi, the co-author of "Unfit for Command". Seems like an awfully level-headed and fair guy, doesn't he?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 08:00 AM
Why do veterans overwhelmingly support Bush when he avoided the draft, cut veterans' benefits, and sat a bsolutely still for 7 minutes while the country was under attack. Sounds like a great war president to me...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 04:11 PM
I never heard anyone, including Bush detractors, claim that W is indecisive. You're charting new territory!

I think veterans groups tend to support Bush over Kerry for two reasons. 1) Most veterans are conservative older men. 2) While Kerry did in fact serve his country in war, when he returned he had all kinds of nasty things to say about his fellow soldiers and he may have "embellished" some of his stories.

Maybe I'm just depressed today, but I don't think it matters who gets elected - we're heading for socialism regardless. Anybody read Springsteen's opinion piece that was published in many newspapers around the country? Sad, sad, sad...
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 05:26 PM
In reply to:

Why do veterans overwhelmingly support Bush when he avoided the draft, cut veterans' benefits, and sat a bsolutely still for 7 minutes while the country was under attack. Sounds like a great war president to me...




Maybe because he didn't repudiate his military service, stage mock raids on the Capital, declare that the army were a bunch of rapists, murderers and thieves, and vote against every arms appropriation that came his way the last 30 years.

Mark
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 05:54 PM
Well at least there's a reason.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 06:02 PM
In reply to:

Anybody read Springsteen's opinion piece that was published in many newspapers around the country? Sad, sad, sad...


When's the last time you came across an artist who was FOR the establishment?

What's sad about this?

"Through my work, I've always tried to ask hard questions. Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens? Why do we continue to find it so difficult to see beyond the veil of race? How do we conduct ourselves during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear? Why does the fulfillment of our promise as a people always seem to be just within grasp yet forever out of reach?"
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 07:19 PM
There was some pretty language in it, no doubt.

The sad part was his anguish over the loss of American values. His idea of American values and mine are two different things apparently.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 07:55 PM
"Why do veterans overwhelmingly support Bush when he avoided the draft, cut veterans' benefits, and sat a bsolutely still for 7 minutes while the country was under attack. Sounds like a great war president to me..."

I find this Michael Moorian "7 minutes" argument to be interesting. What exactly did people expect the president to do at that juncture? At that point, we probably didn't even know it was a terrorist attack, neither of the building had fallen, the Pentagon hadn't happened, etc... In that context, what was he supposed to do?...stand up panicked, scare all the kids, and look unravelled in front of the media that was filming him?...NO. Like any president, he maintained his composure, finished what he was doing, and made a calm exit. Anything else would have been plastered all over the media for all the world to see.

Now, to the swiftboat ads. I have actually been following this topic since well before the book was released. Ever since Kerry started stumping with his war record as his foundation, I began to read up on the differing views out there on the subject, which is where I came across these guys' website.

Now, what's starting to piss me off a bit is the fact that the media is pouncing on these guys as partisan assassins without stopping for two seconds and looking at who they are and what they have to say. Hell, last night, Nightline went through a whole story about it focusing solely on their political and financial ties, without spending any time talking about who they were and what they had to say. Again, another pathetic instance where the media demonizes anyone that doesn't swim in the same direction that they do.

Perhaps these guys are getting funded by people that support Bush. Truthfully, I don't really care much about that...they have to get funding somewhere. What I do care about is the fact that this group is made up of fellow swiftboat commanders that served in the same boat group as Kerry, as well as superior officers to Kerry. Kerry supporters have been showing that picture of Kerry with his fellow commanders....What they don't tell you is that only one of the 22 shown are actively supporting Kerry for President. 2 are dead, 4 want nothing to do with this, and the rest are in this group against Kerry. The only ones supporting him are those that worked under him on his boat.

Let's face it, however much you want to paint them as partisan, it's pretty compelling that almost all of his peers in Vietnam think he's either outright lying or just embellishing on all of his stories about Vietnam. Before you go and tow the party line about these guys, you should do a little research into what they are saying.

In the end, the media is going to do it's best to wash this issue away as poor partisan tactics. After all, Kerry's record is the crux of his argument for why he thinks he should be President (notice you haven't heard anything about his many years in Congress). God forbid the media actually do it's job and demand accountability and seek the truth. Then again, to do so would be to possibly torpedo their own candidate. So, all they can do is cry foul and try and bury the story.

How much of this crap do we have to see before people realize how little neutrality exists in mainstream media? No one's asking them to support a particular position here. However, we should expect them to present the entire story for the public to process and form their own opinons....but, that's again asking them to put their agenda to the side and be impartial and fair....not holding my breath.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 08:07 PM
"After all, Kerry's record is the crux of his argument for why he thinks he should be President (notice you haven't heard anything about his many years in Congress). God forbid the media actually do it's job and demand accountability and seek the truth."

It seems the media is being very "hush-hush" about his voting record in Congress (which makes him THE MOST LIBERAL member of the Senate). Of all the issues regarding his qualifications for presidency, that would seem to be the most important, right?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 08:19 PM
Absolutely. Truthfully, what the swiftboat captains are preaching probably wouldn't bother me as much if it weren't for the fact that Kerry continues to pound the war-hero message down our throats. Taken at face value, his actions as they describe them sound no worse than anything else the majority of these power-hungry politicians do every day of the week....a bunch of idiot peacocks fluffing up their feathers to gain and/or retain their power. The problem here is that he's asking the American public to elect him to the highest office in the country based upon that record alone, not his service in government, which is actually much more pertinent.

Then, the problem is compounded by the fact that our biased panzy media doesn't have the balls to call him out on it.

Man, I'm on a tear...must be the lack of sleep. Little baby girl was up on and off all last night.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 08:48 PM
In reply to:

Let's face it, however much you want to paint them as partisan, it's pretty compelling that almost all of his peers in Vietnam think he's either outright lying or just embellishing on all of his stories about Vietnam. Before you go and tow the party line about these guys, you should do a little research into what they are saying.




Did you read the links in my post, Turbo? Several of these people have already admittedly embellished their stories. None of these people actually served on the same boat as Kerry, all of them on the day in question (regarding his silver star) were over 50 yards away, and all but one of his actual fellow crew members have nothing but the highest praise for him. I wouldn't say almost all his peers have a bad opinion of him.

And besides, here's my biggest problem with this whole situation. If you're going to judge someone unfit to command based on his previous military service, then you've got to be even across the board. Now tell me, who would you find more fit to command:

Candidate A: Voluntarily served in Vietnam. Highly decorated and reviewed by his commanding officers, respected by those under him.

Candidate B: Served with National Guard, after admitting he didn't have the option of moving to Canada. Missed medical exams, questionable attendance at required events, requested transfer to what essentially was a desk job. May or may not have been AWOL.

Tough choice, isn't it?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/10/04 10:53 PM
So you like W more than you liked Clinton? I forget, how did he get out of Vietnam?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 01:27 AM
That was in the past. We're talking about the future here. But you do raise a good point: military service isn't a good yardstick for measuring a presidential candidate.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 01:51 AM
No, I'm saying if we're going to judge fitness for command by past military service, than Kerry is a better choice than W, or Clinton.

But like Peter said, past military service shouldn't be the yardstick to measure fitness for office by.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 02:11 AM
Love that picture, pmb.

Aren't you afraid some arm of our enormously large and intrusive gov't bureaucracy is going to investigate you for child endangerment or something?

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 02:44 AM
When I'm talking about his peers, I am talking about fellow commanders (equal rank peers) that served in the same boat group in which he served. These aren't just disparate boats based in the same port....These are like tanks groups. Like someone was saying on TV tonight, they run in packs like tanks, so what happens to one boat is going to be seen/experienced by multiple boats. The people rallying against him are decorated officers and numerous superior officers directly involved in the awarding of the awards in question. The people that are supporting him are a handfull of his subordinates.

Yes, some have recanted their statements. Some of those same people later stated that the papers that printed the recanting had incorrectly quoted them.

I'm not advocating for these guys and their story. I am advocating for the general public to resist the media's attempt to dismiss this story and dig into the actual meat of their assertions. John Kerry has done NOTHING to deserve that blind faith and trust.

As to judging someone fit to lead, I agree that this issue is not a good litmus test. The only one in the race focusing on this aspect of their experience is Kerry. Bush may be annoying/irritating, but he's the only one of the two making substantive proposals right now. Kerry is making pie-in-the-sky statements followed by military experience rhetoric. I don't care about either of their miliatary experiences, but I sure as hell am not going to vote someone into the highest office in the US based solely upon their continual banter about Vietnam and their continued avoidance of their own experience and voting record.

I think that the Democratic party made a big mistake annointing Kerry as the Golden Child. They would have been better served with someone that could run soundly on their record and their knowledge. The people are ready for Bush to hit the road, but they aren't easily going to give that power to someone who's credibility continues to diminish. If they had tapped into a more moderate JFK/Clinon-type Democrat, this thing would have been a blowout. Hell, they might have been able to pull the more moderate conservatives/Libertarians like me to their side. But, alas, the Democratic party has been overun w/ extremists and socialists.....too bad.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 02:45 AM
A bit off topic, but I was wondering where you guys were hosting your pictures that you are using for your icons.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 04:54 AM
http://photobucket.com/

Some folks, myself included, use this place.

Are you going to put up a pic of that little one?
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 04:59 AM
I'd just like to point out how it's *ok* for Moore to have his movie from his "point of view" yet the DMC is threating to lawsuit tv stations that run the Swiftboat add.

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 11:58 AM
Thanks for the link. Yes, I've been viewing everyone's pictures with envy. So, I thought I'd get a picture of my little cutie up there to provide proof that an ugly guy can indeed produce a beautiful baby.

That thing about the DNC threatening stations is amazing stuff. It appears that they love free speech, except when it's used for something that they dislike. The truth of the matter is that they are scared, and justifiably so. Regardless of whether you believe what these guys have to say, there is now an issue out there directly questioning Kerry's credibility and truthfullness. If I were them, I would probably be equally panicked. If this doesn't go away, it's going to poison his campaign.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 12:07 PM
Not that I agree that this is ok, but the difference here is that Moore's medium was a movie that people pay to go see, as opposed to something that is being broadcast to everyone's home to be seen as part of their normal viewing.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 08:18 PM
I agree. There's a big distinction between an ad run as part of a political campaign and a movie one voluntarily pays to see.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/11/04 11:46 PM
Zarak, Pmbuko... You are totally right, of course. This is America, and people will be forced to see the "swift" ad since they cannot turn off their TV's or change the channel. Television is a plot by the Republican Party to force people to watch against his/her free will. And the $4,000,000 spent to advertise Mr. Moore's "documentry" on TV, Radio, Newspaper and on computer pop-ups IS free speech, where the "swift" $500,000 is against our constitutionally protected freedom against having to view commercials with which we disagree.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/12/04 12:26 AM
By the way, my last post WAS intended as humorous sarcasm... as an avowed Libertarian, I think all political speech is OK, and would have precisely ONE rule for campaign finance reform. That would be 100 % disclosure. You could give ALL you wanted to any candidate, but EACH candidate would have to list EACH donor, and amount. That way we people could decide what WE think about Candidate "A" getting $1 million from the NRA, and Candidate "B" getting $1 million from GreenPeace ... rebuttals welcomed ...
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/12/04 01:30 AM
Lib's have some really great ideas, yet they scare me at the same time.

In reply to:


I agree. There's a big distinction between an ad run as part of a political campaign and a movie one voluntarily pays to see.




Oh how I knew that would be the response.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/12/04 04:59 PM
I wonder why discussions of Moore's film got such huge air time on all the mainstream news outlets, yet the swiftboat fellas ad is getting very little discussion. The only discussion about the ad seems to revolve around the ads funding and the backgrounds of the guys who slam Kerry. Nobody seems interested in examining the truthfulness of their claims - only in discrediting the source.

The media definitely leans left in this country - especially this year, it seems. How about that recent CNN "poll"? They asked, "Does this feel like an economic recovery to you?" Hilarious.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/12/04 05:38 PM
That was my point exactly. I fully understand them digging into who is supporting them, etc. That is standard practice. However, is it not the job of the media to present all sides and let the public decide? They'll plaster the different misrepresentations made by Moore all over the place, but won't even give two minutes to present a clear picture of what these guys are all about. It's pathetic!
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/12/04 05:41 PM
I didn't think a link would work so I pasted the latest odds on the election below. Seems like the odds makers still favor W.

"place your bets
2004 Presidential Race
Nov 02, 2004 07:00 pm ET



Select A Bet TypeFuture Wager Select A Bet Type OptionFuture Wager
Enter Amount: $ Select Bet(s) Below


George W Bush 5-6


John Kerry 1-1"


Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/12/04 06:50 PM
This is kind of funny.....

Dancing With Fairies
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/12/04 10:58 PM
Not as funny as this
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/13/04 03:27 AM
Dude....that's funny as hell! The best part is clicking the random image button.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/13/04 06:08 PM
That was fun. Give him bad hair and a moustache and he looks like Hitler. Make him bald and give him drunk eyes and he looks like me.
The Media Office of Hizb ut-Tahrir [Arabic for Islamic Liberation Party] in Lebanon

In the name of Allah the most merciful,

"Allah has promised those among you who believes, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practice their religion, that which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islam). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah.) (Sura 24:55)


Press Release

Arrest of Osman Bakhash from the Media Office of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Lebanon

State Officers, dressed up as civilians, have broke into Mr. Osman Bakhash's Office in the Makassed Hospital where he works, and arrested him and taken him into an unkown location. This came after the broadcast of Hizb ut-Tahir's activities in Lebanon on LBC TV [ Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation] on Wednesday Night. The broadcast included an interview with Engineer Osman Bakhash, form the Media Office, in which he answered questions that were posed to him. His arrest comes after the arrest of Ali Aslan And Waseem Shaa'rani during the past 10 days, on the accusation of membership with "Hizb ut-Tahrir". These arrests are an indication that we are living in a Police State, that closes people's mouths, and replies to arguments and reason with Fire and Steel.

This campaign of arrests and continuous chasing of Hizb ut-Tahrir members has no valid argument in the laws for which the Lebanese state claims to apply and look upon.

It is of our interest to reveal that what the State Officers are doing under the instructions of the concerned authorities, will not stop the struggle, path, and call of Hizb ut-Tahrir; neither will it change its method, which is calling to Islam through argument and reason, even though this call was to be faced by the policy of imprisonement, which is an indication of the bankrupcy of the people in charge of this state, and their failure to resort to the usual means of persuasion.

Some websites in english:
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
http://www.khilafah.com
http://www.1924.org
http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info [choose english]
http://www.alokab.com/forums [bottom]
OK, I realize this is an off-topic thread, but your post is out of line. It contains no opinion of your own, and appears to be a non seqiutir "threadjack" about some recent event in Lebanon.

I don't want to discourage your participation here, but please at least preface the post with your own words and tell us why you think it's important that we know this stuff.

Right now, it looks like you're spamming.

P.S. religious quotes of any kind are frowned upon here. There's enough for us to disagree about here without bringing religion into it.
did you notice his post was in reply to my very first post in this thread? I think he is most certainly post-spamming.
Have a look at his profile......

I would definitely suggest that you and Peter are correct in that there was an agenda on his mind when this was posted.
Yes, Abduabdallah, very merciful, very righteous good deeds. Nigeria is struggling with what amounts to a civil war between those who insist on imposing Sharia law on non-Muslims, in Nigerian state civil society. As reported in "This Day," a Lagos newspaper:

Sharia: 6 Await Amputation
This Day (Lagos)

August 12, 2004

Agaju Madugba
Kaduna, Kaduna

Six persons are awaiting amputation of their hands in Zaria, having been convicted by an upper sharia court in Tudun Wada, Zaria, Kaduna State.

President of Civil Rights Congress (CRC), Malam Shehu Sanni, who disclosed this in Kaduna yesterday said the convicts had been detained at the Zaria Prisons for one year, after conviction.

According to Sanni, "the convicts were tried and sentenced in one day.

"The convicts revealed that they were not given the right and opportunity to engage the services of legal counsels and were deceived by the prosecution counsel to plead guilty so as to be gven reprieve.

"They have for over one year, remained in Zaria Prisons, a period long enough for them to have served prison terms.

"In a country with glaring evidence of persuasive corruption and impunity at all tiers of government, it is morally unjustifiable to amputate the hands of these impoverished people for petty theft, in the name of puritanism.

"We challenge state governments implementing sharia legal code, especially in the north, to come out with purposeful and meaningful projects and policies that will free our people from abject poverty and misery, Sharia law is not practicable or enforceable in a society deeply stagnated in shackles of penury and soulless poverty," he said.

Sanni said the CRC and other civil society groups in the north were set to challenge the judgment of the upper sharia court.

As he puts it, "we will not in any way condone violation of fundamental and constitutional rights of citizens or the sanctioning of the poor through repressive kangaroo trials which negate the basic principles and ethics of fairness, objectivity and justice."



Posted By: BigWill Re: that crackpot guy - 08/14/04 03:45 AM
Don't get your feathers too ruffled 2x6, I think they're right about that guy. I spent about 15 minutes looking at his links and trying to figure out what the hell he wanted to say. I determined he must be the leader of ringmir's cell, sending him some encoded operational instructions.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: that crackpot guy - 08/14/04 03:48 AM
Great.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/14/04 08:44 AM
Speaking of funny, I bring you this little music video.

(.mp4 file format, requires QuickTime 6)
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 08/14/04 12:11 PM
These guys are really starting to piss me off. Blow up buildings, fine. Shoot at our soldiers, fine. Start messing with out HT forums, and I'm gonna have to get my butt on a plane and head off to the middle east. I'll just have to take care of these radical Islamic fellows all by myself. They haven't had to deal with a pissed off speaker forum member yet. Their days are numbered. If they don't watch themselves, I may just wait until the little lady's "time" is here and send her over there. They really don't want to have to deal with a pissed off speaker forum member's girlfriend when she has PMS.

BTW - You terrorist types fight like 1 armed, 5 year old girls. Come on out and fight like men. Does "Jihad" mean fight like a wimp? We'll fight you head on, whenever, wherever you want. I'm not even in the military, and I'll rumble. Hear me now Abdul, it's not IF we are going to hunt you down and kill you guys, it's WHEN and HOW are we going to do it. 911 was IT. That is the biggest one you wll EVER get away with. Do something bigger, and we'll be able to use your back yard to bottle beer. Bring it on assholes. We've had it with you guys.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/15/04 05:18 AM
Michael A ... Amen Brother !
Posted By: Sutter Cane Re: OT: politics - 08/15/04 05:58 AM
"These guys are really starting to piss me off. Blow up buildings, fine. Shoot at our soldiers, fine. Start messing with out HT forums, and I'm gonna have to get my butt on a plane and head off to the middle east. I'll just have to take care of these radical Islamic fellows all by myself. They haven't had to deal with a pissed off speaker forum member yet. Their days are numbered. If they don't watch themselves, I may just wait until the little lady's "time" is here and send her over there. They really don't want to have to deal with a pissed off speaker forum member's girlfriend when she has PMS.

BTW - You terrorist types fight like 1 armed, 5 year old girls. Come on out and fight like men. Does "Jihad" mean fight like a wimp? We'll fight you head on, whenever, wherever you want. I'm not even in the military, and I'll rumble. Hear me now Abdul, it's not IF we are going to hunt you down and kill you guys, it's WHEN and HOW are we going to do it. 911 was IT. That is the biggest one you wll EVER get away with. Do something bigger, and we'll be able to use your back yard to bottle beer. Bring it on assholes. We've had it with you guys. "

M-


Alright Michael!!! YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the good ol' american spirit we love to see, hear, and feel. Damn I'm proud of ya buddy! lol

I was in the military at one point in time, we'll talk about that some time. I've got some stories to share believe me.

I'll defiantly have to second what CraigSub said, Amen brother, Amen!




Sutter Cane


Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/16/04 03:38 AM
I am by no means supporting what the enemy is doing over there, but of course they aren't fighting us head on...would you want to if you were outmanned and outarmed? We didn't fight the British head on during the revolutionary war either...we would have been slaughtered.

The rest of it, I agree with though...enough is enough. Let's hunt them down and finish em off!
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/16/04 04:52 AM
OK, back on track...

...some good ol truth about Johnny




www.scaryjohnkerry.com/vietnam.htm

Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 08/16/04 07:05 AM
Boy, what a marvelously unbiased, clear and rational ad that is, not at all stooping to cheap insinuations or petty jabs.


I'm really sick of these types of political slander ads - it doesn't matter what side they come from.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 08/16/04 07:08 AM
Here's a nice link on that same topic

www.notsoswiftvets.com

Of particular interest are a list of quotes about halfway down the page from some of these swiftboat vets. Looks like they're...(gasp!)...flip-flopping!


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/16/04 04:15 PM
Adam, that page doesn't do a whole lot to counter the charges on the other page.

The one INANE linked seems a little over-the-top, but that is the kind of crap the TV news keeps showing everybody regarding Bush. Kerry hasn't had to amount any attack ads because the Hollywood and the media have been doing it for him for the past year (Bush's negative ads have focussed solely on Kerry's voting record in the Senate, from what I have heard).

If you agree with his politics - vote for him. If you don't agree with his politics - then don't vote for him. Unfortunately, the American people are not being informed about Kerry's politics, only his heroism and Bush's "failings".
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/16/04 10:50 PM
If the allegations discussed in this article are true, then people in Florida need to start raising hell.

Intimidating and misleading would-be voters is something our government sponsors in OTHER countries, not our own, right?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 12:05 AM
Sorry, I was going to read the first one until I saw the words "Op-Ed" and "New York Times". No point in getting myself ticked off by drivel.
OT: I can't stop buying sh!t off eBay!
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 05:16 AM
In reply to:


The one INANE linked seems a little over-the-top, but that is the kind of crap the TV news keeps showing everybody regarding Bush. Kerry hasn't had to amount any attack ads because the Hollywood and the media have been doing it for him for the past year (Bush's negative ads have focussed solely on Kerry's voting record in the Senate, from what I have heard).

If you agree with his politics - vote for him. If you don't agree with his politics - then don't vote for him. Unfortunately, the American people are not being informed about Kerry's politics, only his heroism and Bush's "failings".




EXACTLY!

Plus the link I posted may have been over the top, but if you sit thru the entire thing, there are definitely truths to be seen there.

Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 05:18 AM
Be sure to read this after that NYTimes article, please.

Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 12:23 PM
All these links are starting to seem too much like homework that needs to be done in order to continue participating in the thread.
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 01:34 PM
And the really silly thing is that each side can easily find printed confirmation of their views on the net, and elsewhere. "Oh yeah? read THIS." "Nonsense, read THIS." "No THIS." "Nah, HERE'S the truth." Ad nauseum.

I don't mean to criticize the thread. I'm quite proud (of it, and all of you) that it has gone on as long as it has and remained as civil (sorta) as it has. My point is, that it's not difficult to find printed support of any view. Doing so doesn't prove the point. It just means that somebody else thinks like you do.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 04:29 PM
Jack... I can say definitely that the Axiom forum has the MOST links per capita of any forum in audio ...
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 06:21 PM
In reply to:

starting to seem too much like homework



yes, i will have my term paper ready to turn in on friday.

i agree with ajax.. the links just end up being a mindless chain of letters and words to support ones ideas and beliefs. i am sure if i look hard enough, i can find some article about a clan of martians on earth who are plotting to take over the world? doesnt necessarily make it true.. bottom line.. read what you want, believe what you want. but i for one dont need ANY article to help me in the conformation of my own beliefs. i think what i think, and that is that!?!

this is in no way a slam on those who have posted links, i am just thinking and typing..

BTW- Bigwill, what you been buyin from EBAY??

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 07:34 PM
What's wrong with my links? Only morons don't like my links!
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 07:52 PM
OK, you got me.. i bit.. hook, line, and sinker!!

dont push me, or i will revive the goatse!!

JK/ lord make it go away!!

bigjohn
Posted By: BBIBH Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 08:32 PM
I must admit that the amount of information is overwhelming, and I have skipped quite a few links.

But, I feel we must remain open, within respects to be able to learn. BigJohn, at one point you needed the information to form your views, and an open mind is essential to keep growing. Oh, and about "enogh room on the dance floor for the women to get naked"....so that explains the New Baby thread!!! LOL

From a non US citizen, it has been somewhat interesting to learn about your government systems and the feelings of the people.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 08:55 PM
Yes, it's refreshing to realize that not all Americans fit the political stereotype that many foreigners apply to us, eh?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 09:19 PM
BBIBH- where are you from??

it is kinda funny how americans are often categorized by foreigners, but most of us are not how we are perceived to be. its even more funny when you see americans making assumptions about people by what state they are from.. and even people from the same state will make assumptions about each other by what city they are from in that state. and then assumptions are made by what side of that city you live on... ? does it make sense.. NO..

but, in the end, we are all individuals and we all have the right to make our own decisions. that is a priviledge a lot of people in some countries dont have.

bigjohn
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 10:41 PM
And with all this said, it's time for another link.

This is one for highlight reels.

homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/sovereignty.html
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 11:51 PM
We only make those state assumptions about people from Texas.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/17/04 11:55 PM
thats OK.. we do the same to ya'll!!!



bigjohn
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 12:02 AM
In reply to:

its even more funny when you see americans making assumptions about people by what state they are from.. and even people from the same state will make assumptions about each other by what city they are from in that state.


Yeah, exactly what is it that makes everyone from West Virginia date within their own family, anyway?

Is there a one tooth gene?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 02:50 AM
I'm not one to tell you guys how to get your points across, but linking to someone else's opinion piece annoys me. I like to hear what YOU think about stuff (and your opinions are usually easier to refute ). Links to statistical info are better, but you know what Twain(?) said about stats.

bigjohn, I have bids in on some audio equpment, though I've been outbid on every piece so far. However, I have purchased a number of lidded German beer steins. They seem way undervalued to me. They keep your beer cold while imbibing outside and the lids keep the bugs out. Some of them are antiques, as well.
Posted By: BBIBH Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 03:57 AM
I am Canadian Bigjohn, from just outside Toronto - born and raised in the area. Outside of the US...you are a foreigners,and the preception varies. ( I actually view y'all as foreigners here, as the board is hosted by a Canadian company!!!) LOL

BigJohn and pmbucko - yes, it is refreshing to learn about different cultures - as close as our countries are, they are very different. Yes, it is also interesting to find that some of the stereotypes and such are not representative of the entire population. As part of my job, I travelled the US extensively, and found exactly what you referred to in terms of views about areas,cities and states. But that is pretty much around the world. As the view gets larger, the area under the scrutiny gets larger.

I must say that travelling in Europe and even as close as to Mexico, was an eye opener. When people thought I was a rich, tall blonde American, I got a certain level of treatment. But when they found out I was a Canadian, the treatment improved dramatically. I was given many reasons for this, but it always made me uncomfortable that I was preceived as bad, and suddenly I was good when I did nothing to change!!!!

I agree that it is a wonderful thing to be able to choose. It is a common misconception that choice is not allowed in all countries. This is true in some countries to be sure. Some of the most beautiful countries in the world are really no different than North America in that respect.

There are good and bad in all people, cultures, religions, countries that fact is without fail.
...but enough rambling......
Posted By: Thasp Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 07:51 AM
This is all I have to say for Kerry. The guy's running for president.. that's sad.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 08:44 AM
Ok, this whole flip-flop thing is completely ridiculous. People who DO NOT change their minds when new evidence (or complete lack thereof) comes to light are the ones you should worry about.

To paraphrease a famous Jewish carptenter: Let him who is without flip-flop cast the first stone.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 12:16 PM
...another 4 hours of sleep night w/ the baby. Man, this part of it sux. But, never enough exhaustion to visit my favorite thread.

PM...Man, please think long and hard about this flip-flop issue before you pass it off as partisan tactics.

Yes, true wisdom is the ability to absorb new information, reassess your position, and change it if the new information warrants. Any of us debating here will agree that a good sound argument based on fact is all it will take to bring us to reconsider our positions. Anything else is blind partisan faith....ignorance.

With this being said, I think that it's naive to place what Kerry continually does in this category. The man does not come upon new information and change his positions. To think that gives him too much credit. The man changes his positions on issues where he sees fit to meet his political needs. Yes, the maker of that film has a political agenda, but the words are Kerry's. Nothing has changed that much in relation to this issue to explain away the continual morphing of his position....except the political climate.

This is the problem with Kerry that everyone just wants to brush aside as partisan politics. That's the easy/ignorant way of handling this. What people should be doing is looking at the evidence and then considering what this says about the man running for office. What can be said about a man has no core positions?....a man who acts more like a power-hungry chamelion than a leader? Yes, Bush may be an idiot at times, but you at least know where he stands. Kerry has only one single position....all positions must be beneficial to my political career, no matter what. There's the real meat of the thing.....the Democratic Party is giving you a used car salesman for a candidate. He can paint his message in all colors pleasing to your eyes, but the car is still a POS.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 12:29 PM
Which is what makes this election a tough one. Bush can make decisions, but I don't like a lot of them, and Kerry just can't make them...sounds like the old rock and a hard place...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 03:50 PM
You're right. I DO give Kerry more credit than he might deserve, but both sides are guilty of this. Just look at the last link Adam posted. But getting back to flip-flopping, if Kerry does continually change his position depending on what's most politically favorable at the moment, well, many people think it's politically favorable to get Bush out of the White House and feel this really is a "whatever it takes" kind of election.

If Kerry ends up being a lousy president, then I'll be criticizing him just as harshly as I do Bush. You can count on that.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 06:30 PM
Yes, the sentiment to remove Bush is thick out there. Hell, I've said before that I'd vote Bush out if the Dems had provided a more solid candidate.

What makes this rock and hard place situation even trickier is the particular juncture that we are at. These are EXTREMELY dangerous times to hand over control of this country to just anyone. Decisions made in the next four years can affect the security of the country and even the world. So far, John Kerry has not presented a cogent argument based upon his record in office as to why he is up to that task. So, my suggestion to all the Bush-haters is to be very careful with this decision. It isn't just your taxes that are on the line....it's your lives. Be very sure that you trust the person you vote for with that responsibility. Kerry loves to paint himself as a war-hero, but his voting record and consistency on issues do not necessarily suggest that he would be a good wartime president.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 07:56 PM
People who are against Bush don't believe he is making us safer. It's really as simple as that. The next question we have to ask ourselves is: Can Kerry do any worse?

If Kerry wins, he will be scrutinized just as much as Bush has been, if not more. One reason I'll be voting for him is that I believe his administration will be much more open with the American public. I'm willing ot cut him some slack until he gets into office, but after he's in, he won't be able to get away with anything.

I don't envy any man that job.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 08:05 PM
In reply to:

I don't envy any man that job



well, if you ever feel like running, i think you avatar might just do you in

actually, i am a big supporter of parents being the first person to introduce drinking to their children, no kidding.. i would rather it be me, than someone else. i was knockin back budweisers with my dad while working on cars when i was in the 4th-5th grade.

in fact, not to get off topic, i think thats whats wrong with the kids today.. a lack of parenting and teaching in the home. i want my kids to know what i know, and ask ME for advice, not some other snot nosed kid that dont know squat..

OK, ramble over.. back to the presidents... or lack there of.

bigjohn
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 09:59 PM
"If Kerry wins, he will be scrutinized just as much as Bush has been, if not more."

You are kidding, right? The media is giving Kerry a complete walk right now both on his war record and his voting record. Why in in the world would you think that this will change if he becomes President?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/18/04 11:36 PM
"If Kerry wins, he will be scrutinized just as much as Bush has been, if not more. One reason I'll be voting for him is that I believe his administration will be much more open with the American public."

I agree with Turbodog's critique of the media favoring Kerry. Polls of journalists and media members have indicated that they, by a wide margin, favor Kerry.

How has the Bush administartion not been open (I'm assuming you are referring to the war in Iraq) with the American public? Journalists were embedded in practically every unit, there has been no shortage of briefings over there, nor has the media been censored.

One thing is for sure: a defensive posture focussed on educational efforts in the Arab world, coupled with a dependence on French public opinion regarding our own foreign policy, will result in a less safe world for America. We can see the fruits of 30 years of "do-nothing" policy clearly now.
Posted By: ericb Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 12:21 AM
'One thing is for sure: a defensive posture focussed on educational efforts in the Arab world, coupled with a dependence on French public opinion regarding our own foreign policy, will result in a less safe world for America. We can see the fruits of 30 years of "do-nothing" policy clearly now.'

That is an amazing amount of speculation and generalization wrapped into one statement. You must be trying to push someone's buttons. Or perhaps you're serious???
Posted By: ericb Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 12:33 AM
Because all presidents are scrutinized and critisized. It's part of the job description.

I realize that there are quite a few here who see the media as being in the pockets of the democrats, but I just don't see it that way. We live in a capitalistic society and the media is going to do anything it can to make a buck - schmooze the politicians when that is convenient and aggressively attack them when that is what will sell newspapers, magazines, TV airtime, web ads, whatever.

This is why, I believe, we see so much 'radicalization' of the airwaves in this country (check out any talk show on TV or radio). Extreme opinions sell and get people all fired up. And then they come back for more.

Myself, I can't stand all the accusations, rudeness, and attacks from both sides of the political spectrum, which is why I get most of my news from NPR and the BBC (of course, I'm one of those liberals from the northeast so those choices only make sense ).
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 02:08 AM
Merely summarizing the last 39 pages of argument.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 03:53 AM
In reply to:


If Kerry ends up being a lousy president, then I'll be criticizing him just as harshly as I do Bush. You can count on that.




I'm on record even a year ago saying I absolutely believe if Kerry wins he would go down in history as the worse President ever.

The man just has ZERO character ZERO backbone ZERO vision. Howard Dean is a retard IMO but at least that man has those 3 qualities that Kerry lacks.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 05:27 AM
I'm curious where you would rank Bush on the spectrum of U.S. Presidents.

Dislaimer: the link is biased, but dies give a good summary of some of America's best Presidents and their views.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 06:42 AM
In reply to:

I'm on record even a year ago saying I absolutely believe if Kerry wins he would go down in history as the worse President ever.




And there are many who believe that Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents ever.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 05:30 PM
Bush won't go down in history as the worst ever - there are too many complete failures (like Grant, John Adams, Carter) for him to be classified as such.

How about Kerry? Look at the news yesterday and today. Bush announces planned troop withdrawls (and eventual base closures?) in Europe. Kerry blasts him on this in front of the Veterans of Foreign Wars despite having said last month that he was for scaling down overseas military deployments.
Why the flip-flop? Kerry's campaign manager called it "new thinking"!
More likely he sees an opportunity to curry favor with the Europeans (who - despite their loathing for Americans and their opposition to our foreign policy and ideology - really love the influx of cash that our military bases bring), a chance to paint himself as pro-military at the last minute (that is absurd given his voting record in the Senate and his rhetoric after the Vietnam War), and continue his anti-Bush attacks on all fronts.

I don't think there is much need to worry, though. Looks like Bush will get re-elected, IMO.

Posted By: les9596 Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 09:08 PM
In reply to:

...absurd given his voting record...



Not absurd at all. The fact that Kerry, who's record is generally pacifist and anti-military, is trying to run on his war record shows how vital his team thinks that is to his success.

I live in Washington (state of) and am represented by Senator Patty Murray, the "mom in tennis shoes" candidate who's voting record has also generally been anti-war and anti-military. She voted against both the Iraq war authorization and the later 80b war appropriations bill. Yet just the other day I saw a campaign commercial for her that touted her recent pro-military work and votes without ever saying she supported the war. Why would she do that?

This beautiful land also produced Seattle Congressman "Bagdad" Jim McDermott, who famously went to Bagdad just before the war to meet with Saddam and pre-denounce the coming invasion. He also took Saddam's money (which he later returned.) His reelection website still trumpets his anti-war position, but no longer mentions his trip. It made sense when he did it, but it wouldn't go over very well these days, would it?

I think these politicians, as smart and informed as they are, and as separated from the body politic as they are, have seen something. I think they've seen America changing right in front of their eyes.

Americans are beginning to realize that, suprise, we actually are at war, even though it's a new trans-national, slow-motion, hurry up and wait kind of war. And suprise again, a war most Americans believe was forced upon us by an enemy that seeks our destruction, not our attention. A war where, painfully, some of our "allies" have shown us their backsides. And obviously, a war we can lose. Who wouldn't get serious about that? To me, if a candidate isn't talking about the war, they've got nothing to say.

So this year voters have a job to do, maybe their most important job in 140 years, the results of which will undoubtedly affect the entire world for a long time to come. That frightens a lot of people, but not me. I look forward to it. I trust the American people.

Who do you trust?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 09:27 PM
In reply to:

Who do you trust?



not george w.. !!!

but you make some very valid points. there seems to be alot of 'flip-flopping' going on from both sides regarding the war. its just gonna be a whirlwind ride right down to nov 2nd.

may the least worse candidate win!!

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/19/04 11:01 PM
bigjohn... a couple of questions for you.

1. Where has GW Bush "flip-flopped?"
2. What would John Kerry do regarding Iraq that is different than current policy?

Please be specific... this is an interesting topic...
Posted By: md55 Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 12:11 AM
I can't point to Bush flip-flops. On the other hand I don't consider consistency on an erroneous course as particularly desirable. Each time a decision is made, aren't there many other factors to consider beyond consistency with what was decided before? Nor do I consider it flip-flopping to consider nuances as situations develop. So I don't see either of these qualities definitive of either Bush or Kerry as either good or bad.

I find it very difficult to wade through all the media hype and political manipulation to really know what either candidate is really capable of.

As to the question of what Kerry might do differently: I just returned from a trip to Sweden and Norway. What I heard there is that 90-95% of Europeans do not support Bush’s policies. One of the people I spoke to was a Swedish professor of Political Science who does support Bush so I think his information was probably accurate. Interesting also was that in countries like these, and I’m sure in most others, what happens in the U.S. has enormous consequences. They follow the U.S. stock market on a daily basis, maybe more closely than we do. We are truly the giant on the block and what is good for us is generally perceived as what is good for them as well. Interesting also, was how universally English was spoken. One German speaking Swede told me that now, when he does business in Germany it is more common to do it in English.

So one thing Kerry may be able to do differently is to re-establish support from Europe to take some of the burden from the U.S. financially and militarily. I think the fact is that Bush has taken the great sympathy for the U.S. after 911, and turned it to antipathy in much of the world.

For me, one of the most disturbing things the Bush administration has done is the attempt at abrogation of all legal process in taking prisoners, attempting to hold them indefinitely outside the jurisdiction of any legal body, and denying them any process to assert their guilt or innocence or as being entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. To me this is conduct for which losers are tried for war crimes and the victors get away with because no one has the power to condemn them. Is this how we bring democracy to the world? What does it cost us to act as civilized people and allow each accused to assert the facts as to their conduct? A little flip-flopping here rather than waiting for the Supreme Court to rebuke you would be quite desirable in my opinion.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 01:06 AM
"So one thing Kerry may be able to do differently is to re-establish support from Europe to take some of the burden from the U.S. financially and militarily. I think the fact is that Bush has taken the great sympathy for the U.S. after 911, and turned it to antipathy in much of the world."

Howdy, md55. Welcome home.
You make some good points, but the above paragraph I will choose to take exception with.
European countries will not pick up the banner in Iraq if Kerry wins the election. NATO is irrelevant now that the Russians have joined it - they were the reason NATO was created in the first place. As the EU progresses the US will become less important to Europe in every way, IMO.

European countries are not as militarily capable as we are, even when their interests do happen to coincide with our own. Neither is it easy to get the military units from different countries to operate together as one - especially if there are language differences involved. And when accidents happen, it harms relations betwen those countries.

And, after 9-11 there was some real sympathy directed towards the US, but by the time the Winter Olympics rolled around the following year - it was gone.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 01:07 AM
So... He is bad for and for not flip-flopping... got it. Let us take a look at another scenario. The 17th UN Resolution is passed. Four months go by, and we have this large military because we made the mistake that the UN was actually SERIOUS this time. We now leave 135,000 troops in the middle east waiting for... what... the French, Russian and Germans to actually admit they make too much money from The old Iraq regime to ever support this effort ?

Can you imagine the cries were this to have occured... I know it is now considered Passe' to discuss the torture rooms under Hussein. I have talked to people who saw these rooms... (I have several family and friends in the military) ... And roughly 100,000 people per year were either raped, tortured, or killed.... We are about 16 months since the start of the war... Or about 133,000 people spared that. The calls for The current President's head for NOT stopping these atrocities would be quite loud. And yes, Had Al Gore been president, and being pummeled for believing what every other politician believed, I would be asking the same things.

Is it pretty ? No.

Does a lot of Europe support us ? No.

Should we govern according to Europe's desires ? Well, In 1946, 70% of the French said they were better off under Hitler than under freedom.

MD... You call it an erroneous course. I have tried to find this... Can you point out any Democratic Politicians that were saying "NO WMD's Exist" before January, 1, 2003 ?
Posted By: md55 Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 01:47 AM
Bigwill, first a clarifcation: Russia is not a member of NATO NATO countries.

But, I wasn't speaking of NATO but of a larger coalition of the willing to help Iraq to a better life. Why do you think it is that so few in Europe support what we are doing?


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 02:01 AM
md... I will try to answer that, too... in 1983, the vast majority of Europe was terrified of the Pershing Missiles... Many thought the US was intent on starting WWIII ... Reagan challenged Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall in 1986, when it fell in 1989, how many Europeans gave Reagan any credit for helping to free Eastern Europe? The intellectuals pounded Reagan for years... "Communism works" ... "Reagan is unrealistic to expect a free Eastern Europe" ... "The people of the Warsaw Pact do not WANT Freedom" ... the list goes on.

The same arguments are made today... Iraq has its own government, and a real chance for freedom. Yet we don't celebrate it... Again, There are problems, and hopefully we will stay the course and assist the wonderful people of Iraq to total self-governance...

And watch... IF this works, 10 years from now, The French will take much credit for it...


Posted By: md55 Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 02:21 AM
Craig, sorry I didn't notice your question post was directed to Bigjohn. I'm not sure what your second post was in response to. I don't see any posts about WMD or the build up to the Iraq war and waiting for Europe to join the liberation effort.

My concern is getting the job done with as few killed and mamed as possible, and with reducing the deficit spending to get it done. Why do you think 90% of Europe and perhaps much of the rest of the world does not support the U.S. in its efforts?

Do you think it served any real purpose to hold hundreds of people in a prison camp contending it is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal processes, or that of any other nation or body? Is this morally defensible? Does this help make the U.S. safer? Have you seen Mr. Bush admit and correct many, or any, mistakes? Is that because he would be a flip-flopper as he labels Kerry?

You asked what Kerry might do differently. I suggested one thing that might help--improving relations with other countries that might help carry the burden and change perceptions in the world that it is just U.S. imperialism at work. I think that perception, right or wrong, makes us less secure, tending to breed terrorists. It doesn't make Kerry the right man for the job, but maybe it is something the guy in the job should work harder at. What do you think?


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 02:27 AM
Here is a quote... Kudos to anyone who guesses from where this quote came. "All of our efforts in the past few weeks were intended to give peace a chance, that is for Iraq to disarm peacefully (the "disarming" referring to the stipulation that Iraq was to eliminate all WMD's and any missiles with a range of 150 KM or more)..... If Iraq wishes to avoid confrontation, it must understand that the opportunity it has been given is the last."

Anyone care to guess who said it, and when it was said ?


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 02:45 AM
md, Two other presidents also worked for 12 years with every country on Earth to try to solve the problem. Hussein was never going to allow "his" property to be taken. He viewed Iraq as his... and completely his.

As for the holding of terrorists in prison ... they are not US citizens, therefore are not entitled to constitutional protection. In order to get protections afforded by the Geneva Convention, all they need to do is state which country they are fighting for, and give rank and serial number. I have a business partner who is an ex green beret... served in the original Gulf War... and speaks often with guys still there. That is how the Geneva convention works.

By the way, it is not 90% of Europe... it is the majority... true. But people talk about how we should worry about Europe... 90 days AFTER 9/11, 33% of Germans thought we DESERVED to be attacked. Many are taught hatred in Europe today.

Have I seen Bush take responsibility ? YES ... HE DID say they were mistaken in their belief that the WMD's would be found quickly.

You have a desire to see as few maimed/killed as possible.. well... at the risk of sounding obtuse... who WANTS more dead ?

By the way...The following European countries WERE Allied with us in the war... United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Albania, Romania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Croatia, Slovenia, and the Ukraine. That is 22 countries, plus another 27 countries around the world.

This list includes Nicaragua and Angola... both sworn enemies of ours 20 years ago.




Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 02:56 AM
I stand corrected, they didn't let Russia into NATO...yet.

Y'all continue.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 02:57 AM
Russia is not in yet... however... I am drinking some Stoli right now... I may have to petition for their acceptance...
Posted By: md55 Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 03:23 AM
Craig, I'm not finding an answer here as to why so many Europeans don't support Mr. Bush's policies now.

Its easy to bash the French about all this. Have you ever looked at how much terrorism the French have had to deal with, the problems with the huge impoverished Muslim minority their colonialism has brought them, or how good the French are at dealing with terrorists? How is the French position on the war benefiting them financially now?

What about the rest of Europe? How were the Swedes and Norwegians benefiting? I don’t have the answers, I would liked to have been able to ask more questions when I was there.

One difference I see is that being citizens of small countries with divergent interests, the Europeans are more accustomed to dealing with different views, interests and circumstances. I was surprised by the differences between just Sweden and Norway, seemingly similar countries with populations smaller than many U.S. counties.

I one of those who has never fully credited the arm's buildup and confrontation during the 80's with the collapse of the soviet block. I believe that the core belief we held, that totalitarian communism was fundamentally unsound and unsustainable was correct. In 1987 I read Gorbachev's book Perestroika. He identified several failings of their system and the need for reform. The one that stands out in my mind was the need for spiritual/creative freedom for the then soviet societies to thrive. I thought at the time that Gorbachev was a sincere reformer who saw some of the real failings of the soviet system and was determined to change them. Was I wrong? It used to scare the hell of people when I told them that was what I got from the book. People were terrified to trust anything a commie said. But look what happened, have you looked fully at the role Gorby played at the time? Must it be only one cause that brings a result?

Why do we have to bash people so much who don’t agree with us? I really dislike the polarized political climate that exists in the U.S. today. All over the media now is the effort to smear the hell out of Kerry on the one hand with the same going on about Bush on the other. Little of it has anything to do with effective leadership, or the real issues that confront us. Right now I feel this election is going to be decided on largely irrelevant rubbish.

I think your questions are interesting if we are looking for real answers. If we are just trying to persuade each other to our beliefs they become less so.

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 03:38 AM
MD - Europeans have rarely supported US policy. Ever. But the myth that we went this war alone is that... myth.

What I tried to point out was examples of Europe not agreeing with us. They never do.

As for Gorby... When did I say Reagan won it with an Arms build up ? ... That did make the Soviets realize we were not going to roll over, and lest you forget, Gorby's predecessors WERE devoted to world communism. Reagan's strength DID help a guy like Gorby succeed.

And I read "Fall of the Russian Empire" in 1977 ... It foretold of the Russian people ridding themselves of communism due to desire for freedom...

The French position on the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically... now that the war is won, they ARE hoping to cash in on reconstruction.

Am I going to try to convince you? No... I have tried to answer every question you ask. You are not interested in reciprocating... not a problem. Just remember... no country does more for other nations than do we... especially in the private sector... and be proud you are American...
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 03:55 AM
MD... One other minor tidbit... I spend a considerable amount of time in Toronto, and meet people from all over Europe and Asia... I can tell you that they are fed a daily dose of absolute lies abour US intent... perhaps someday over drinks... we can chat more...

On my last trip, when I asked if Iraq would be better off if we put Hussein back into power... the responses and attitudes of those I talked to changed in a hurry ...

When we meet people from other countries... we are Ambassadors... if they say we are terrible, and we let it go unchallenged, we are giving tacit approval.

So... Can you tell US why the disagree so vehemently with us?
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 05:27 AM
I for one frankly don't give a *expletive* about what rest of the world thinks. It's what Craig said, the world never approves of what we do, yet we do more for rest of the world than any other country, ever! I am so damn proud to be an American, yet that would offend some Euro. I'm just so happy Tony Blair has balls, because I wonder if any other Euro leader does.

Furthermore, I really hope that investigation at the U.N. gets at least a preliminary report out before the election so everyone can see just how pathetic that institution is. Also so it will explain the REAL reason France, Germany and Russia didn't *support* us removing Saddam

Furthermore, I really hope that investigationg at the U.N. gets at least a pelimenary report out before the election so everyone can see just how pathetic that institution is. Also so it will explain the REAL reason France, Germany and Russia didn't *support* us removing Saddam
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 04:08 PM
I'll second INANE's disdain for European public opinion. Who cares?

Gorbachev let loose some small reforms, sent signals to their republics and puppet states that reforms would not be frowned upon by Moscow, and the thing snowballed out of control. Why did the empire crumble from within? Because it was illegitimate and did not have the emotional support of the people it governed. Same deal in Iraq. We drove some tanks around Baghdad and the people came out in droves to get rid of their illegitimate oppressors. How anyone can call a war that ends like that "wrong" is beyond me.

The enemies of America, democracy and capitalism wish to destroy the American people's support for their own gov't - so that we might crumble from within, too. The agents of this attack are primarily liberal professors, celebrities and media members whose power of speech outweighs that of the rest of us. With large numbers of people distrustful of their own gov't, ashamed of their history and tradition, wrought with an inferiority complex over "European intellectualism", paralyzed by a relativist view of the world, etc... the stage would be set for big changes in American gov't. Call me paranoid, but that's the way I see it.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 05:08 PM
BigWill, you're paranoid. In fact, you remind me a bit of Joseph McCarthy.

Ahhh! They're everywhere!



(frog blast the vent core!)
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/20/04 06:23 PM
I may be paranoid, but that doesn't change the facts.

Let me preface this with the statement that I don't think md55 is a communist. But, I am going to use a couple of statements from his above post to indicate how Marxist thinking has become dominant in Europe (perhaps one of the reasons why many people in Europe have been swayed by their media to dislike US policy/Bush) and also increasingly affects the US political climate.

"...the problems with the huge impoverished Muslim minority their colonialism has brought them."

Imperialist agressors. Exploiters of the poor and the 3rd World. Rigid class divisions based on wealth and race. Pure Marx.

"I believe that the core belief we held, that totalitarian communism was fundamentally unsound and unsustainable was correct."

True, true, but you seem to be making a distinction between "totalitarian communism" and some other form of communism. Do you believe, as Marxist scholars do, that "true communism" will still be achieved - not in backwards countries like Russia and China, but in industrialized countries like the US, Canada, France, or Britain?

Totalitarian communism is "...fundamentally unsound and unsustainable", but not wrong? Just in need of some tweaking?


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/21/04 01:56 PM
Since noone answered my question, I guess I will now. This is a quote by <>, the French ambassador to the UN. It was made on November 8, 2002. The topic was the 17th and final UN resolution that Saddam Hussein had 30 days to completely comply with this last resolution, and IF he did not, then war WOULD be the final solution.

So... We went this alone..... ?

47 other countries joined us.
The French reneged on yet another agreement.

Posted By: md55 Re: OT: politics - 08/22/04 02:37 PM
Bigwill, wow, a lot gets read into simple phrases. I simply referred to happened to European colonial powers. They ended up reciprocating with their colonies by giving the residents of the colonies rights to settle in the home countries. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Islam_in_France
The French have been dealing with fairly large scale social and economic issues stemming from these circumstances. Consequently France has had a lot of experience with terrorism. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,176139,00.html

Totalitarian Communism: Totalitarianism http://www.bartleby.com/65/to/totalita.html and Communism http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/communism.html. Though they have been combined in particularly nasty ways in most of the examples we have seen. I think it is worth understanding the nature of political and economic systems both separately and together. So I refer to both together when they were both part of the sickness of a society.

In California by democratic action, we have common ownership (communism) of the beaches up to the mean high tide line. In Oregon, Texas and Hawaii beaches are public to the first line of vegetation. Have you ever tried to walk on the beach where "capitalists" have control, with barricades down into the water every few yards? Things are rarely entirely black or white in my experience so I like to make finer distinctions.

Are you a dialectic reactinary? dialectics

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/22/04 02:54 PM
MD... It is nice to know that publicly owned areas are a form of communism. Next year, We get to visit the "People's Republic of Yellowstone Park" ...

Teddy Roosevelt would be SO proud...
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/22/04 03:00 PM
MD - I also put the French Ambassador's quote from November 8, 2002 at the UN on the FINAL resolution. You aksed a good question. "Why do the French NOT support our position and the War in Iraq?". They DID support us publicly. Then they backed out later. We waited 4 months after the 30 day ultimatum was passed by the UN.

Unfortunately for the French people, They have a government with no courage.


Posted By: Stimpy1 Re: OT: politics - 08/22/04 03:37 PM
Why did the French back out? I'm sure there are a number of reasons no one will ever know.

#1 reason IMO was the "Oil for Food" behind the scenes dealing with Irag and the French government. Seems France and Russia among others did not honor the UN embargo on Iraq and were lining Saddam's pockets and their own with Billions of dollars. They didn't want the world to find out they were dirty. Food never got to the Iraqs and made both sides very rich.

Another reason is that France is very left leaning. Which is why they embrace the Kerry, Clinton and Kennedy's in our culture and hate Bush. Purely political.

The far left loaths war for any reason. Basically pacificts that think both sides are wrong and the issue can be worked out.

Another reason is the French have no military mite to speak of. They are a paper Tiger (much like Germany). You could probably name a half dozen or more 3rd world nations with more military power.

Anyway that how I see it anyway.

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/22/04 04:04 PM
Now... for some humor regarding the French. In the movie Ocean's 11 ... When Elliott Gould is explaining to Brad Pitt and George Clooney how well guarded the Casinos they want to rob... Gould : "They have enough firepower to occupy Paris" ... then pauses and adds "Ok, bad example, but you get my point" ...

All things that are funny are funny because they are true...
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/22/04 06:08 PM
France and Russia, despite public announcements suggesting the contrary, are still building Iran's nuclear weapons production infrastructure. IAEC expects Iran to start producing nuclear weapons as soon as next year.

Here's a piece from "Iran Focus:"

"Girl, 16, hanged in public in Iran Fri. 20 Aug 2004
On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.
The sentence was issued by the head of Neka’s Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahs’ Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.
In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.
The judge personally pursued Ateqeh’s death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her “sharp tongue”."

As a lifelong liberal, I have to admit that multicultural and moral relativism breaks down as a philosophy in the face of evil. Tolerance of evil does not advance the liberal concept of "tolerance," it advances the cause of evil.

Yes, it may not be easy for liberals to admit, but there is evil in the world. Hannah Arendt was incorrect when she concluded "evil is banal." On the contrary, evil is malignant, active and is at war with us. Yes, friends, we may not be perfect, but remember who spilled into the streets to celebrate when the twin towers came down.

France made a historic and strategic decision under DeGaulle, to align with the Arab block in the UN, attempt to steer a European policy adverse to that of the US. That policy included open immigration from Muslim countries, an about face regarding France's historic support for tiny Israel's contest with its implacable neighbors for its existence, withdrawal from the NATO military structure, and constant adversity to US foreign policy.

Chirac gave a nice sword to Sadam Hussein. I wonder if Hussein took anyone's head with that sword.

Though a lifelong democrat, I was glad, on 9/11 that my guy lost. I felt much more comfortable with an ass kicking cowboy in the White House, someone who sees the world in terms of good and evil, than Gore who would still be discussing our response to 9/11 with the French and Russians and asking the national alter egos of Al Qaeda what we could do to make them less angry at us.

I have a neighbor who ran over to me immediately after the World Trade Center towers came down and asked me whether I agreed with her that building tall buildings was an arrogant insult to "people in that part of the world?"

So, maybe we should just abandon our friends, conform our foreign policy to the demands of the Mullahs, curb our arrogance and build nothing taller than 2 story mud huts, and convert, then maybe we won't earn the understandable hatred of so many.


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/22/04 07:35 PM
2x6 , In addition, In order for this hatred to stop, everyone here will have to give up his Axioms...

NOW maybe people will understand what a life and death struggle this is..

Seriously though, the terrorists do not want to co-exist. They don't want to understand us. They want to kill us. Period.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/22/04 09:16 PM
Maybe the answer isn't giving up our Axioms, but providing them with Axioms! If they got to hear their music with as much clarity and detail as we do, they'd have no reason to want to go out and fight anymore. They'd just sit in their homes amazed at how good music can sound
Posted By: Stimpy1 Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 12:08 AM
Great post 2x6spds! Your showing real promise. For a liberal anyway

Remember the old saying: "If your under 30 and arn't a liberal, you haven't got a heart. If your over 30 and arn't a conservative, you haven't got a brain."

The older I get the more I find this to be true. There is evil in the world, as you stated, that dosen't want to co-exist. Their not misunderstood just bent on evil, pure and simple.

Again great post!
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 01:48 AM
Respectfully, Zarak, that's the problem. If you gave someone a nice Axiom set up, in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and if the folks used the system to listen to music, they'd get an escorted trip to the soccer stadium to have their ears removed. The problem is not one of poverty - though we're talking about a part of the world that is incredibly impoverished - a part of the world which makes nothing except the occasional carpet with slave child labor. The problem is a culture - an ethos - a belief system which is intolerant and violent. Just ask the neighbors - the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Christians, the Jews, and if you're a Shia Muslim ask the Sunis, and vice versa. The problem is a belief system not poverty. The 19 fellas who took over our airliners on 9/11 won the trust of the airport security, and the passengers who they convinced they were taking back to the airport. These 19 were not impoverished - they were educated, lived in Europe and America, may have been your neighbor, and were filled with hatred and a malignant murderous intent. They were not alone. I know you were joking, but a nice set of Axioms, a nice fridge and airconditioner, a nice car, are not going to do the trick.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 01:51 AM
That was some funny (and insightful) sh!t!

You weren't that funny in person. JK, LOL, etc...
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 02:16 AM
2x6, You are more than correct. A business partner of mine was in special forces for 7 years. He still is in contact with many friends still in the middle east... They do not value life, they do want us eradicated. Gone. DEAD !!

The example of the World Trade Center's height offending the Muslim world is just plain STUPID... The tallest HOTEL in Saudi Arabia is 900 FEET high... I could go on for hours about things learned... but this is a true war... against an enemy who KNOWS they violate the Geneva convention in every action...

What are they counting on for victory ?

1. Our Naivety.
2. Our Apathy.
3. Our basic belief that others cherish life as we do.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 02:39 AM
Yes, craigsub, and the tallest building in the world is in Kuala Lampur. Under Sharia, Christians may not build new churches and Jews no synogogues, and if any were taller than the local mosque, well, they had to come down. These symbols signify differently in our culture and their's. It would never, in a million years, occur to a westerner to bring down the Petronas Towers - but when the WTC Twin Towers came down there was an enormous celebration all over that part of the world - the only exception was Tehran, where a substantial crowd had the courage to hold a candle light vigil.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 03:26 AM
They also count on us dividing against each other as factions in our democracies compete for power. Not just here but in Israel and Europe as well.
They seem to be pretty damn good at using the media and other sources for dispensing propaganda - turning the freedom of speech and of the press against us (not advocating restrictions on those freedoms, just pointing it out ).

BTW, md55, I have been called a reactionary before (although I joined the Libertarian Party - couldn't find the "Reactionary Party" on the list at the polling place).

Are you a communist?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v155/bigwill/dco0139l.jpg
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 04:13 AM
Yes! Let's all collectively disengage our brains and unite behind whoever happens to be leading us at the moment -- this means Kerry, too, if he wins the election!

Surely blind unity is the answer to all our troubles.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 04:30 AM
PM ... You make a good point. Afterall, what did Unity behind a Democratic President do in WWII? ... oh yeah, total victory... we cannot have that going on now...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 07:25 AM
Are you saying there are parallels between WWII and the current military situation in Iraq? If so, then you have a point. If not, then what exactly are you saying?

Unity behind a president who put our country into an existing war, (in no small part) as a result of a direct attack on our soil, is a no-brainer. Unity behind a president whose administration has misled and made mistake after uncorrected/unadmitted mistake is a little harder to justify, wouldn't you say?
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 11:11 AM
PM, I know people like you. There is no convincing, so we will leave it at rest. I could, however, write volumes about WWII, from Pearl Harbor to Nagasaki, which had errors. You get the benefit of looking back and criticizing. Leaders have to look into the future and do their best.

By the way. Germany did not attack us on 12/07/41 ... and had stated publicly for years they wanted peace with the US...
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 11:37 AM
I think Hitler would have been happy to have peace with us, until he controlled all of Europe and Russia that is. Then we would have been next on the list and would have had to fight him alone since the countries that ended up being allies would have been beaten or at least weakened a lot. Japan thought they were doing a good thing for their side in Pearl Harbor, but it backfired on them in the long run. Who knows how WWII would have turned out if Japan didn't attack us and we stayed in isolation for a couple of years longer.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 12:07 PM
Zarak, Of course, you are correct. Germany DID want to rule the world with Japan. I am also quite sure Hitler was FUMING when he heard about Pearl Harbor. On the other hand, I am sure Hirohito was pretty yanked about Germany invading Russia.

And PM, I am being somewhar tongue in cheek. But we WERE attacked, by people who want to wipe us off the face of the earth. I also personally know of 3 terrorist training grounds which were found in Iraq... one which was the body of a 747... and the accounts were quickly deleted from public view. Why? Most likely information control... you don't always let the other side know what YOU know...

And every war has mistakes... I asked this before, and was ignored. I will try again...

1. Have you read what the French wrote on 11-08-02 ? It is posted here.

2. Can you point out all the politians that were NOT convinced that Iraq had WMD's on 12-01-03 ?

3. Another question... we massed troops 30 days after the final ultimatum... then tried for 3 more months... do you think Saddam MIGHT have taken that opportunity to get rid of them ? Perhaps to Syria ? Iran ?

You say blindly following... I see blindly opposed to anything... as many on the left are... that Bush says or does.

Personally, I am also a libertarian, and would love to get the government more out of my life... But I also trust/believe that our current President is doing a pretty good job under impossible circumstances...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 05:06 PM
Personally, I have problems with authority - one of the reasons why I'm pretty happy with the job I have.

Team sports teach us valuable lessons - at least they used to - about unity, sacrifice, hard work, selflessness and success. When you put your team before your self you are not doing so to empower the coach - you do it for the greater good of your teammates. Later, if it turns out the coach is an a-hole, he gets fired.
We are in a war in Iraq for better or worse - many years from now, but not yet IMO, it will be clear exactly which. In the meantime we might as well present a unified front to our enemies. And, once again, Kerry has publicly stated many times over that he will continue the efforts in Iraq should he be elected (although he can't seem to make up his mind whether he'll be sending in more troops or using less troops).
So why doesn't everybody get on board and help get this thing done?
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 05:31 PM
In reply to:

Unity behind a president who put our country into an existing war, (in no small part) as a result of a direct attack on our soil, is a no-brainer.




pmbuko, you hang yourself with your own words. What you describe above is exactly what happened after 9/11! The ongoing war (slain marines in Lebanon, the first attempt at WTC bombing, the USS Kohl) came to US soil, and to follow our president is, as you put it, a "no-brainer".

Maybe we haven't found Saddam's WMD's yet. We know they were there because we sold them to him! There was universal acceptance before we invaded Iraq that there were WMD's there. John Kerry even said so. Therefore, Saddam hid them (or sent them over the border to Syria) before the invasion.

Maybe Saddam wasn't directly responsible for 9/11. He was still a brutal dictator with WMD's, and a threat to US interests. Iraq is much better off now than they were 2 years ago. Iraquis were glad to see Saddam go. I worked with an Iraqi every day who had family still in Baghdad, and despite her worries about them, she supported the war.

Mark
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 09:22 PM
In reply to:

What you describe above is exactly what happened after 9/11!


That's not how I see it. Yes, there was an existing conflict between non-overtly sanctioned international fundamentalist Muslim forces and the West. But the evidence linking Iraq to any such forces is scarce.

The fact that he possessed WMDs at some point was never in question. More important than posession, however, is intent. Was Saddam a real risk to our national interests? Highly debatable. That's the crux of the issue.

Hitler and his allies WERE a clear threat to our national interests. He happened to rise to power at a time when isolationism was our country's modus operandi, and it's easy to blame our lack of earlier action on the blinders that resulted from such non-forward-thinking policy.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 10:28 PM
Saddam also hatched a plot to assassinate Bush Sr. Seems like an enemy to me.

I read a NY Times article that had been reprinted in todays local paper that stated Al-Sadr's young recruits are paid $400 per month to join the militia. Where do you suspect that money is coming from? I'd bet dollars to donuts it's coming from Iran. In my book that makes Iran our enemy... just as Saddam's funding of, and support for, terrorists made him our enemy.

Regardless, it's just as easy today to tell the good guys from the bad guys as it was in WWII.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/23/04 10:40 PM
The Ba'athist regime in Iraq and the Ba'athist regime in Syria are Nazi governments, yes, that's correct - totalitarian national socialist police states which make war on their neighbors and threaten world peace. The dirty little secret of WWII was that France was essentially an enthusiastic member of the Neue Weltordenung, so it's not surprising that France is so friendly with the Nazis of Syria and Iraq. Except for France, we took care of the Nazis in Europe and removed a totalitarian nationalist socialist police state in Iraq. Good job!!!

So much for the atttempts at 'secular' government in that part of the world. What can we say about Islamic Jihadists? They are also totalitarian fascists who are making war on the world, and who have attacked us, and hurt us badly - they hate our freedom, they hate our religions, they hate our success, they hate our music and they hate that this is where the party is happening.

If GWB took out Iraq because he believed they had WMD and that it was even conceivable that they would share those weapons with Jihadists through back-door support, then I'm more than OK with it. OK, I would like to see Muqtadar Al'Sadr's head on a pike, that's true, but all in all, a good effort.

Iran and its mullahs who execute 16 year old girls because they have sharp tongues will, thanks to the French and Russians, have nuclear weapons soon. They have to go.

Just my opinion.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 12:21 AM
2x6 ... Wow !... I am speechless here. So.. VERY WELL SAID !!!
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 12:23 AM
In reply to:

Iran and its mullahs who execute 16 year old girls because they have sharp tongues will, thanks to the French and Russians, have nuclear weapons soon. They have to go.


I read about that today, too. Scary to think that events like this are just shrugged off or lauded in that country.
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 12:31 AM
In reply to:

Wow !... I am speechless here.


OH? (in a John Wayne voice) Wul' that'll be the day, pilgrim.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 12:33 AM
Ok... Who the hell woke up Father Time ? ...
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 12:34 AM
[raspberry]
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 12:35 AM
PM... I think I can speak even for BigWill on this one... We even want liberals safe from terrorists... you included ! ...
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 03:25 AM
Thought it would be a good time to throw out a thanks to Ringmir for getting this thread started over a month ago now. I've found it to be the most entertaining/interesting/civil (for politics) thread on here in a while (I can only read so many should I get the M22 or M60 threads).
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 06:39 AM
I'm currently accepting cash and checks from anyone who wishes to contribute to the "Save Peter From Terrorists" fund.

Rest assured your contributions are tax-deductible.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 08:32 AM
Come on, Pumbuko, don't you really think they're "freedom fighters" rather than terrorists?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/24/04 05:57 PM
I am so glad to see this thread is still alive. I've been neck-high in dirty diapers and spitup, so I've had to limit my board surfing.

Just saw an interesting thing on Drudge Report.

Apparently, Kerry has contacted one of the Swift Boat vets that he roomed with in Vietnam to find out why they were beating up on him so hard. I guess he ended the conversation with a request to meet with him face-to-face, which was declined by the fellow vet.

I wonder what that's all about....hmmmm, let me think...."Will you guys cut this out? What's it going to take to put an end to this? How much katsup will it take?"

Drudge is also reporting that Kerry's own journals are stating that they had not been fired upon yet.....9 days after the incident with his first purple heart. I guess the campaign is trying to control the flames by floating the possibility that his first award was for self-inflicted wounds.

Man, this thing is falling apart right around him. His service in Vietnam is truthfully not pertinent to his ability to be President, but he used it as a deciding issue and it's now stuck to him like a bad case of herpes.

Yes, I know that I'm quoting something that is only breaking, but Drudge is usually on the mark. The interesting part will be if the mainstream media starts to pick up the story. As is always the case, they may be slanted to the Left, but they usually give in and run a damaging story if the story has enough meat to it...just ask Clinton.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/25/04 01:20 AM
Hey pmbuko, here is a beautiful decanter commemorating the 1968 Republican convention - a must have for any patriotic American! LOL

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=823&item=3695818732

Yes, I am addicted to eBay.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/25/04 02:30 AM
In reply to:

The far left loaths war for any reason. Basically pacificts that think both sides are wrong and the issue can be worked out.



You say that like it's a bad thing.


Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/25/04 03:29 AM
Correct spiff - it is a good thing in a pluralistic democratic society. However, when a pluralistic democratic society is confronted by evil, take Nazi Germany for an example, liberal tolerance leads to Chamberlain's historic idiocy, Munich, an empowerment of evil and a war of survival.

Sometimes you have to stand up for good, acknowledge evil for what it is, and fight.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/25/04 04:03 PM
In reply to:

Sometimes you have to stand up for good, acknowledge evil for what it is, and fight.


Very true. And if you are poor or disadvantaged, your chances of taking a stand and fighting are so much better than the rest of us!
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/25/04 05:39 PM
Not so true in todays volunteer forces. Lots of kids from my high school have been turned down by the military in recent years for a variety of reasons.
Also, the reservists and Nat'l Guard troops seem to be regular working guys like you and me. In fact, the guy I replaced in the classroom 6 years ago was an officer in the reserves forced into duty in Bosnia.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 05:28 AM
I think this is my all time favorite Internet forum thread.



Posted By: Thasp Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 06:18 AM
In reply to:


How about Kerry? Look at the news yesterday and today. Bush announces planned troop withdrawls (and eventual base closures?) in Europe. Kerry blasts him on this in front of the Veterans of Foreign Wars despite having said last month that he was for scaling down overseas military deployments.
Why the flip-flop? Kerry's campaign manager called it "new thinking"!
More likely he sees an opportunity to curry favor with the Europeans (who - despite their loathing for Americans and their opposition to our foreign policy and ideology - really love the influx of cash that our military bases bring), a chance to paint himself as pro-military at the last minute (that is absurd given his voting record in the Senate and his rhetoric after the Vietnam War), and continue his anti-Bush attacks on all fronts.




A wonderful example of that man's inability to stick to his guns on anything he says. I don't watch the news much, so I don't get to hear and see all of these things. That guy'll say and do anything to get positive feedback and to criticize Bush.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 04:12 PM
The absolute best is how Kerry is demanding Bush renounce those swiftboat adds yet when moveon.org accuses Bush as being Hitler Kerry says nothing.

Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 04:30 PM
there is a difference between a website saying something.. and nationally broadcast commercials. either way, i find it ridiculious that BUSH would even try and doubt kerry's war record, when his scared, pampered little a$$ was too wussy to go there in the first place. !!

and make no mistake, bush is FOR these anti kerry ads.. he acts like he aint, and gives the illusion of supporting kerrys military record.. yet, he makes no attempt to stop the group from making the commercials.. plus, 2 of his own staff members have had to resign cause of direct links to the swift vets organization.. now tell me bush isnt behind this crap!!..

and just another angle to all this.. bush could actually be helping kerry with all this swift boat stuff.. heres why.. kerry has yet to have to really get specific about other key issues in this election. budget, the war, health care, domestic security, expanding jobs and american work force, economy, etc.. and as long as bush keeps attacking his military record.. all kerry has to do is defend that, and never get pressed on the other REAL issues.. i dont know bout ya'll, but what kerry did 30 years ago is not really my concern.. what i am concerned with, is what he will do in the next 4 years..

the bush campaign better rethink their tactics, cause i think it my end up hurting them in the end..

bigjohn
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 04:57 PM
Speaking of Kerry not having to give is views on other issues yet, when do the debates start?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 05:15 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Moveon.org is funding commercials of this nature....so there isn't much difference here.

As far as that lawyer that was advising the vets while working for Bush's campaign, you might want to be careful about that argument when the council for Moveon.org is also council for the DNC.

In the end, you have the same thing being done by both sides here. The candidates may not like it, but it's free speech. Bush is denouncing these types of organizations and their tactics and Kerry won't even do the same....He's a cry-baby who is mired in this war record issue and is doing whatever he can to spin his way out of the quicksand that he laid out there.

"kerry has yet to have to really get specific about other key issues in this election. budget, the war, health care, domestic security, expanding jobs and american work force, economy, etc.. and as long as bush keeps attacking his military record.. all kerry has to do is defend that, and never get pressed on the other REAL issues.. i dont know bout ya'll, but what kerry did 30 years ago is not really my concern.. what i am concerned with, is what he will do in the next 4 years.."

John, I love this part. You have summarized the problem with this thing and society as a whole. We have a large mass of sheep out there willing to vote for this guy solely upon their dislike of Bush. He consistently avoids any discussion of his useless record in the Sentate. He focuses consistently on his war record. Now, when his record is under fire and they have to concede possible inconstencies in his story, he tries to spin himself as the candidate running on issues. People are so fired up to get rid of Bush that they are willing to vote in this spineless chamelion to run the country.

I personally don't like Bush. I think that has some pretty extreme views on civil liberties that piss me off. I think that he is just another spending-whore pandering to different political groups, unwilling to stand by the 'smaller government' principal touted by the Republican party. However, given all of these concerns, I am not willing to get in line with the rest of the sheep and vote for this guy who has no core set of beliefs, does only what is beneficial to his political career, and doesn't have the courage to stand up and answer for the choices he made in his political career.

On a different note, to vote Kerry in would derail the possibility of a Condy/Hillary fight for president in '08.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 05:24 PM
i agree with what you are saying.. i have said it once, i will say it again.. we arent voting for the 'best' candidate, we are voting the least worse.. the lesser of two evils as it may be!!

i dont think condy has a chance in 2008, but hillary sure does. its a scary thought, but one that has merit. i think the 'idea' of her running is more appealing than her actually doing it.. once she gets put to a national audience on a regular basis, that bland, mono-tone voice will end up sounding like the teacher in the peanuts cartoons.. she will lose steam fast, and surly not win.. i think??

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 10:56 PM
There has been quite a bit of talk about how those smear ads may have been hurting Bush, too.
I think the ads have done more harm to Kerry, however. The issue of his service and post-war testimony has been forced onto the public agenda. It appeared the media previously had been more than happy to simply rubber stamp his military service.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 11:13 PM
In case no one remembers, Vietnam is an issue no one wants to remember. Kerry made his service in Vietnam a central issue of his campaign to counter the traditional Republican attack on democrats as soft on national security issues.

I think Kerry's decision will cost him the election for the following reasons:

1. We lost 50,000 men in the South East Asian war - a war which divided this country and did permanent damage to the national psyche. Talking about Vietnam is as appealing as a bucket of piss.

2. Kerry held himself out as a war hero despite the fact that he knew there is a substantial and vocal group of vets who think Kerry overstated his valor. Bragging is bad enough, making false or inflated claims would be unforgiveable.

3. Kerry made public statements during the war, after his service - statements which disgraced the service of millions of people who served and who don't think of themselves as war-criminals.

4. Kerry's supporters denigrated Bush's service in the Air National Guard. More folks have served in the National Guard over the years than enlisted military. I think Kerry may have insulted a substantial group of voters who served in the National Guard. His political advisers should have advised him about this potential group of voters who never thought of themselves as an affinity group until Kerry's campaign insulted them.

Just some thoughts


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 11:28 PM
In reply to:

3. Kerry made public statements during the war, after his service - statements which disgraced the service of millions of people who served and who don't think of themselves as war-criminals.


I know that people don't like thinking of themselves as criminal, but Kerry was not making up the horrible acts he witnessed. People did kill women and children. People did burn entire villages.

Yes, it was a brutal war and our soldiers had trouble differentiating between cililians and militants. But that does not excuse their acts.

The many soldiers who did NOT commit any of those acts have a right to be angry with Kerry, but I have a feeling that those who DID commit them are just sore because they don't like to be reminded of it. And I don't blame them, because morals are not a very helpful thing when you're just trying to stay alive.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 11:39 PM
Nobody had an answer, so I looked it up and answered my own question. The debate schedule for the 2004 election year is as follows:

First presidential debate:
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL
Thursday, September 30

Vice presidential debate:
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH
Tuesday, October 5

Second presidential debate:
Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, MO
Friday, October 8

Third presidential debate:
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ
Wednesday, October 13

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 11:41 PM
PM... I have 4 relatives who served in Vietnam. They lived through cases where children would literally walk up to them, and explode (bombs on their backs) ... other times they would start firing automatic weapons.

Enemy Soldiers there learned to dress in civilian clothes to fool our guys, who WERE abiding by the Geneva convention. These "soldiers" would then open fire on our troops. Same thing would happen with women...

So our guys defended themselves. And yes, that IS excusable.

Here is a fact... no military in HISTORY has EVER used a higher standard of protecting innocent civilians on the "other side" than have we.

Also... in Vietnam, you never read about the millions of man-hours spent by volunteers to run hospitals, care for children... etc... These volunteers were off duty soldiers...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/27/04 11:53 PM
I don't want to be taken out of context. I was merely trying to state that reprehensible war crimes were in fact committed in Vietnam that could not even remotely be considered self-defense. I'll definitely concede that the number of people participating in them may not have been as great as Kerry suggested. They were likely rare incidents, similar in occurence to events such as Abu Ghraib the current conflict.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/28/04 12:18 AM
My point exactly, pmbuko. That's why Kerry will lose the election. He opened a sore. He did not heal the wound.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 08/28/04 12:43 AM
Peter...please tell me that's apple juice in your avatar.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/28/04 12:44 AM
Nope his kid's cranking brewskis! That's pretty non-PC, huh? LOL
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/28/04 01:00 AM
Notice that at least an inch or so is separating his mouth from the beer...

He only gets a single dipped pinky's worth of beer at this age. But he always wants more.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/28/04 02:12 AM
Now THAT was funny.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/28/04 02:58 AM
Now you're making me feel guilty. But it's a good excuse to use a new pic!
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/29/04 02:58 PM
PM,

I think that you have hit right on the point of what Kerry did that pissed all of these vets off. If you listen to his testimony, he lists off these different incidents and then states that these were not isolated incidents, but were rather the norm. Instead of telling of the horrors of war, he threw a blanket of disgrace over ALL vets. I think that this is why he's getting flamed so hard right now by these guys.

I think that I've said it before, but I'll say it again. John Kerry stepped on a land mine when he put his war record up as the foundation for his campaign. He is now trying to shift the dialog to pertinent issues of today, which is a welcome sentiment. The problem for him with doing that is that it will reopen the flip-flop dialog and his extremely liberal voting record dialog. This should make for an interesting few weeks up to the election.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 08/30/04 06:15 PM
This has been a great thread. It's hard for me to find legitimate reasons to get excited about Bush or Kerry. I think politicians of their "ilk" are the reasons voters in Minnesota elected a pro wrestler as Governor a while back.

My evaluation of the 2 leads me to the conclusion that I cannot vote for Bush. We need a strong intelligent leader for the next few years. Looking at Bush historically - one huge red flag appears. In 1989 as owner of the Texas Ranger baseball club, Bush allowed the trade of Sammy Sosa (and Wilson Alvarez) for Harold Baines and Fred Manrique. He's forever tainted in my eyes.

I'm hoping Jesse Ventura will enter the contest between now and November! Jesse and California's latest Governor would be a helluva bipartisan ticket.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 05:01 AM
Perhaps all this Vietnam crap will end up helping Kerry, it would sure help keep ppl's mind off of who he really is!




Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 08:27 AM
Lame. Sorry, but I've heard the term "flip-flop" so much that my brain checks out. It's almost as lame as this.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 12:44 PM
I have to call you out on this one. You state that you "check out" when you hear the "Flip-Flop" argument. I assume you do so brushing it off as simple partisan attack. The problem with this is the fact that the term being used has a very well-founded origin. To do so is to do exactly what Kerry is trying to do....you are trying to brush aside his 15+ years record in the Senate and vote him in solely based upon your disdain for the President. Truthfully, this is reckless. To disregard Kerry's voting record and the consistent contradictions in his positions is like picking your heart surgeon based upon his/her charm and good looks and not their qualifications.

I have to say that I'm fully surprised how much I hear people willing to vote for Kerry solely because they dislike Bush. It's such a apathetic/lazy approach to the responsibility of voting in this country. The choice of a leader needs to be made based upon the belief structure of the candidate and your confidence that his/her positions and record indicate that they will truly rise to the responsibilities of the office....not "just because".

If you want to see this idea in action, just take a walk into that crowd of protestors in New York. Yes, a few may be knowledgeable of the issues, but I would bet that they majority are these idiotic sheep caught up in the frenzy of Bush-hating wanna-be hippie mentality. Ask them to discuss Kerry's positions and watch the eyes gloss over or watch them try to divert the discussion to how "Bush is a liar!!...a warmonger!!!". In the end, you find the proof that it is our right as citizens to gather and protest, as well as our right as citizens to remain truly ignorant of how our government actually works.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 03:52 PM
Lame? Oh, here's lame ... Jihadists sure know how to treat their gentle Buddhist friends:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - A militant Iraqi group said it had killed 12 Nepali hostages and showed pictures of one being beheaded and others being gunned down in the worst violence against captives since a wave of kidnappings erupted in April.
The announcement of the killings, made in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site Tuesday, came as France intensified its efforts to save two French reporters held hostage in Iraq by a separate militant Islamic group.

The Nepalis were kidnapped earlier this month when they entered Iraq to work as cooks and cleaners for a Jordanian firm. The killing of men from a tiny country that had nothing to do with the invasion or occupation of Iraq will send shockwaves through foreign companies doing business here.

"We have carried out the sentence of God against 12 Nepalis who came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians ... believing in Buddha as their God," said the statement by the military committee of the Army of Ansar al-Sunna.

The group posted a series of photographs showing the killing as well as a video.

The recording showed two masked men, one in camouflage, holding down a hostage. One of the men then used a knife to behead the hostage and then hold his head aloft.

The video then showed a group of hostages lying face down and being shot by a man using an automatic rifle. It then showed bodies splattered with blood and bullet wounds.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 04:07 PM
Proceeds from the ketchup sales apparently go to scholarship funds for the kids of fallen servicemen. That's not lame, pmb.

The protesters in NY, and the fools on the streets that are intimidating convention goers, illustrates again the intolerance of the left nowadays. If you don't agree with their Marxist-based drivel you apparently shouldn't participate in democratic activities, shouldn't express your opinion, and shouldn't walk on the sidewalks of NYC. I am stunned by the thuggery demonstrated by these people.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 04:13 PM
Please BigWill. Are you saying that the Anarcho-Trotskyites shouldn't express themselves? At least they haven't stoned anyone yet.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 05:42 PM
What's the scoop w/ these anarchy fools anyway? I thought that this ignorant and juvenile concept disappears with the conclusion of puberty. Why Democrats would associate themselves with these morons is beyond me.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 05:59 PM
The colleges keep spitting out new ones.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 07:46 PM
An anti-Bush vote cannot be considered a lazy or reckless way of voting. I've cast a few of my presidential votes for third party candidates-voting my conscience and knowing full well that my vote was for all practical purposes meaningless. If I vote for John Kerry this year it will not only be an anti-Bush vote, it will also be anti-Cheney, anti-Rumsfeld, anti-Ashcroft, anti-Condy Rice, anti-Wolfowitz and anti-Karl Rove. I don't believe, in my heart, that this group of neo-conservatives has the ability to move this country forward. I'm very knowledgable of Kerry's weak Senate record-my wife is a passionate Democrat, we argue politics everyday. I'm extremely frustrated to not have a "great" candidate to vote for, but at this point will probably cast a vote for Kerry as I live in a "battleground" state and can't stomach the alternative. I don't think I'll live long enough to see any changes in our political system, but I don't feel that the two party system serves us well anymore. Candidates outside the realm of Democrats and Republicans can't muster the financial resources to compete.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 08:47 PM
If we were in a different time, I might agree with you. However, there is too much at stake right now to be using the "anyone-but" vote. We are talking about the highest office in the US during a time of war....a time where our enemy is watching very closely and will regard this as a indicator of America's resolve and determination. At this critical juncture, I find it to be reckless to give power to someone that has absolutely NO resolve just because you don't like the President. Is there any better way to signal a victory to our enemies?

Yes, the two-party system sucks. It continues to provide weak candidates funded up the wazoo w/ special interest money. We are continually left to decide between the better of two evils. Unfortunately for everyone, the Dems dug as deep into the liberal pot and put up a real loser this year. If they would smarten up, push the fringe left to the side, and focus on their moderate base, this thing might have been a blowout. Instead of the fiscally conservative JFK-type glory, we are left with the politically-driven Teddy Kennedy-esque socialist BS....at least until the camelion changes colors again.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 09:38 PM
Yes we're at war-this group is floundering through it with no apparent real strategy. This isn't a strong President-he's a floundering, ill-advised man. If he'd put as much effort into a real strategy in Iraq as he does discrediting Kerry's Vietnam record (as he did with John McCain 4 years ago) we'd be much better off. The only moderate in the entire cabinet is Colin Powell and who in Washington listens to him? He's been hung out to dry on the war issues and obviously been reduced to the role of a Cheney-Bush mouthpiece.

Can you really, with any conviction, say that we're at war in Iraq because of 9/11. I supported and applauded Bush, as did most of the rest of the world, going into Afghanistan post 9/11. Now show me a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Is the world a better place without Saddam? You bet! Do I feel any safer here in Minnesota knowing that Saddam is under lock and key? No way. Are we making progress against bin Laden and his cohorts or are we just further pissing them off and breeding more militant radicals who hate America and what America stands for. We've lost the good will that the rest of the world afforded us post 9/11. The Bush/Cheney blind rush to war in Iraq has cost us that. If we intend on saving the world from all evil we had better get to Sudan, North Korea and countless other areas. Can we afford to do that? What are the real costs of all this going to be? Can our economy withstand the pressures of Bush's deficit spending as well as his tax cuts? Who's going to pay? Probably not me, but I worry that my children will ultimately get saddled with the end results of this administration's policies.

As far as "recklessly giving power to someone with no resolve". I find it reckless that this country gave power to a man who has mockingly attacked Kerry and McCain's service record, but whose only apparent recollection of serving this country as a young man, is that he visited a dentist at an army post in Alabama. The thought of transition of power during a time of conflict is unsettling, but this President has not, in my eyes, earned the right to a second term.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 10:26 PM
Jorge... We will try one thing at a time. First, We found 4 different terrorist training camps in Iraq, one of which had a passenger compartment from a jumbo jet for training. So, Is it your position that Iraq was not involved in harboring and training terrorists ?
Posted By: littleb Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 11:20 PM
I wasn't going to walk into this fray, but this issue has brought me out into the open. Considering the hatred of Americans throughout the Middle East, every country in the region could be suspect of harboring terrorists. Let's be objective here, and put ourselves in the shoes of the average Iraqi. We've been bombing them for 20 years, so it wouldn't be surprising that certain individuals would chose to take action against the US. The question I ask is why Iraq? I don't trust that the Bush Administration is going to tell the public the truth in regards to this. Are people so afraid of a possible terrorist threat that the President making up intelligence reports to start a war with a weak, middle eastern dictatorship isn't even questioned. I, for one, am appalled by this. We impeach a President for lying about a sexual adventure. We glorify a President who lies to start a war. I'm totally stunned by this.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 08/31/04 11:43 PM
Well... You did walk into it. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a sexual harassment case brought by a former employee. Lying under oath to keep one's self from being convicted or ruled against is called perjury.

Now... as for the war in Iraq... Name some specifics that were lies. By the way, this is the 9th question I have asked in this thread, with the first 8 never answered.
Posted By: curtis Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 12:07 AM
Do any of you watch the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart? I think it does an decent job of being neutral(it does lean to the left) and putting things in to a good perspective. It is also freaking funny.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 12:12 AM
It is a bit left, and is often hilarious... Dennis Miller is a bit right, and is also a load of fun. Notice neither of them gets into hatrid... a good thing.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 12:30 AM
It is freakin' funny but that show is far from neutral - the core philosophy seems somewhere between communist and nihilist.
Jorge, we have debated the Iraq war to death. Turbodog summed it up very well, I believe. Maybe someone can link to that excellent post by Turbodog?
Regardless, if not for 9-11 we would not be in Iraq today. The war against the bad guys is not confined to one country or one group of people. The whole region - from Morocco to Afghanistan - celebrated wildly the killing of thousands of innocents on 9-11. There is a long history of terrorism against the west by Muslim fanatics. They target civilians.
The enemy is not one man (Osama), or one group (alQaeda), but a radical, unchecked political culture bent on the destruction of western civilization. Given time, money and technology they will likely succeed.
Scary as it sounds, Iraq is a good start. We need to follow up with determined efforts to overthrow all the Muslim totalitarian theocracies, raids against the Iranian and Pakistani nuclear programs, and develop alternatives to middle eastern oil. Forget about peace talks - they only use them to catch their breath, re-arm, and re-deploy. That's my opinion.

Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 12:53 AM
Craigsub -

During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said:

Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

On Dick Cheney's request Joseph Wilson went to Africa to investigate this issue. It was his determination that Iraq did NOT try to buy "yelow cake" uranium from Niger, and in fact all the paper work pointing to the fact were forgeries. He reported this back to Dick. So one of two things happened.

1) George lied during the State of the Union address.

or

2) He didn't know about Mr. Wilson's trip, and the results of his findings.

I'm not sure which scenerio is scarier.

I do find is very troubling as well that upon Mr. Wilson's speaking out against Mr. Bush's remarks, his wife is "outed" as an undercover CIA agent. I watched George on the news laughing about it, saying with a big smile on his face "we'll probably never find out who did it..."

You asked.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 12:57 AM
Ah, Spiff, you have been too busy with your new home. A couple months ago the British investigation by Lord Such&such revealed that Saddam had indeed sent a group of homies to buy uranium (sounds bad, but apparently the stuff is harmless) from that country in Africa. He had also sent a delegation to Afghanistan for some reason - I forget what.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 01:18 AM
Spiff....From the transcript: "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed in the 1990's that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Notice YOU left out that FAR more telling phrase regarding the IAEA's belief at the time. The British intel was a minor portion of the evidence. Both the UN and the IAEA were convinced that Iraq had an on going nuclear weapons program at the time.

There have also been ample writings that Wilson's wife had lobbied for him to get this job... and that he was a long time Democratic Party supporter...

There is also a lot of evidence that Wlson was the one lying...


Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 01:35 AM
In reply to:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa




It was also recently verified to be true by the intelligence agencies of at least 3 other countries.

All of these comments about Bush lacking intelligence is straight out of the old liberal playbook. They tried it with Reagan, too. For a dumb guy, Bush sure has been able to cause one heck of a meltdown in the Democratic party. It has been very enjoyable to watch.

The hate the left is spewing is pitiful. I'll bet Kerry and Edwards are nice guys. As people, I like them. Their policy ideas are just wrong, so I won't vote for them.

I challenge all of the lefties in this thread to tell us why to vote for John Kerry without referring to Bush as part of the argument. Can you go 2 days telling us why to vote for Kerry without making a degrading comment about Bush? Of course you can't...
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 02:11 AM
I agree with you, littleb. Every country in the middle east is at least suspect for harboring terrorists. The majority of folk in that part of the world do hate us. Their religious leaders have fulminated against the west, in general, and the most powerful western country, the USA, in particular, for decades, fulminations which further a devotional Holy War, a Jihad against infidels. Iraq was a secular Arab country - though secular, it was also a National Socialist totalitarian police state with a completely controlled press - a press which promoted hatred of the US as vitriolic as that of the Islamic Jihadist press. So, if you put yourself in the shoes of the average Iraqi, as you suggest, perhaps you are humiliated as you are told by Al Jazeera and the Arab press in general, because the US brought down the Nazi Ba'athist criminal regime of S. Hussein, and you did not - an insult to your honor. The average Iraqi should be grateful to the US, we delivered the average Iraqi from a nightmare system of systematic murder, rape, random arrests, torture if an informant thought you made a wrong gesture which signified disrespect of the Ba'athist regime.

Contrary to your suggestion, the US did not randomly bomb Iraq over the past decade - we did not bomb anything near civilian targets unless an anti-aircraft radar installation was purposely situated in a civilian area, then turned on thereby inviting an HARM strike.

So, why do they hate us? Because we are the biggest infidel, the most powerful kafir, we are successful, we are where the party is, the music, but really, you know there is an abundance of hatred in that part of the world for all kafirs, Buddhists (note the 12 Nepalese who were murdered today?), Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, B'hai. Why blame us for their over-flowing hatred? Another reason they "hate" us is that we let the Republican Guard and Iraqi army live. We did not slaughter them. They stashed their heavy weapons, took their RPGs and assault rifles home and come out to kill us when they can.

Why Iraq? Because our intelligence agencies, the French, the Russians, even the UN all thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe they're buried, maybe they're sitting in Syria. Does anyone have any doubt that Iraq had WMD? The Ba'athist celebratory footage of the bloated bodies of Kurd civilians, skin sloughed and burned, bore swolen testimony to the Iraqi use of poison gas against civilians. Anyone doubt that Iraq was part of Pakistan's dissemination of nuclear weapon technology through AQ Kahn's network? Why do you think Bush "made up" intelligence about Iraq's WMD capabilities? Had Iraq cooperated with the UN inspections there would not have been a war, and you blame Bush?

Why do you mock our concern and fear of Jihadist terror attacks? I lived in NYC for most of my life and thought the twin towers were wonders. I can't believe Islamic Jihadists brought down these buildings. I can't believe the celebrations all over the middle east - celebrations of carnage. Why did they celebrate? Because they finally struck back at the Crusaders. There's a great burning in their hearts for failing to take Vienna in the 17th century, and for having been turned back by the infidel Christians. You think there can be peace with these folks? Not so long as every institution in these countries preach hate and celebrate murder. Heard of any peace marches in any Islamic country - any public outcry for peace with the Jews or the Christians, Buddhists or the Hindus? No. Because although you complain that Bush lied to us, the true fact is that every source of information every instrument of public opinion motivation in Islamic countries speaks in favor of Jihad, in favor of murder, and tell the biggest whopping lies you can imagine... and you're stunned by the fact that we made war on Iraq? I'm stunned you're stunned.


In reply to:

I wasn't going to walk into this fray, but this issue has brought me out into the open. Considering the hatred of Americans throughout the Middle East, every country in the region could be suspect of harboring terrorists. Let's be objective here, and put ourselves in the shoes of the average Iraqi. We've been bombing them for 20 years, so it wouldn't be surprising that certain individuals would chose to take action against the US. The question I ask is why Iraq? I don't trust that the Bush Administration is going to tell the public the truth in regards to this. Are people so afraid of a possible terrorist threat that the President making up intelligence reports to start a war with a weak, middle eastern dictatorship isn't even questioned. I, for one, am appalled by this. We impeach a President for lying about a sexual adventure. We glorify a President who lies to start a war. I'm totally stunned by this



Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 03:36 AM
Let me start by saying thank you to everyone for jumping in on this one. After seeing Jorge & Littleb's posts, I thought that I was going to have to jump into one of my lengthy tirades.

Since everyone has gotten my back....a few thoughts.

1. Arnold may have an annoying accent, but he is definitely a good speaker. He has a great stage presence and delivery. He just picked up a few points in my book.

2. Listed to Bush speak on Rush today. I don't listen to Rush usually (too extreme for me), but Drudge announced that Bush would be coming on his show. I will have to admit something. Having been one to question Bush's intelligence in the past (earlier posts included), I think that I have a new opinion of him. I think that his problem is not necessarily his intelligence level. I think that his problem is his ability as a public speaker. When he gets on a complicated topic, he nails the topic very well. It's the formulation of smooth soundbyte-worthy dialog that escapes him. In this new light, I can give him a little more credit than I have previously been willing to allow.

3. 2X6 - I am with you on your comments about the sentiment out there some have concerning fears of future attacks. A few times recently, I have seen people downplay discussions of future attacks. I truly believe that some people still don't get it. The events of 9/11 don't seem to have left enough of an impression on them to truly understand that they ARE coming....they want us DEAD...they're is no negotiating with them....no matter who is President, they are still going to do whatever they can to inflict mass damage on our nation and our people.

Yesterday at work I was having a discussion with a coworker about the election, etc. By the end, he kept trying to convince me that what we are dealing with now is no different than the Nazis, Communism, and Vietnam. I couldn't seem to get through to him that there is a HUGE difference. This battle is a religious one. Our enemy doesn't want to beat us on the battlefield.....they want to erase us from the planet. There are no rules of war for them.....there are no rules at all. No one is safe. So, we either sit back and wait for the next massive attack or we stay on the offensive and do whatever possible to deter or at least delay those attacks.

In the end, I just don't get it. When I read my dialog above, it makes me think of that scene from the Terminator when he's trying to get her to understand the Terminator and what she's up against. I should chuckle about that, but the reality is that it give me heartburn, because it's a perfect analogy for what we are now facing.

Well, I could go on and on, but I must attempt to get some sleep before the next baby meltdown.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 03:47 AM
2x6 as always I am in awe by your insight into culture in that part of the world.

A rehash but to all liberals:

In reply to:

Now show me a connection between Saddam and 9/11




Nobody is saying there is a direct link there, nobody has said. The point that you are TOTALLY missing is this is NOT a war against those who did 9/11. It is a war against terrorism period! Sadaam was high on the list of terror supporters. Scarey thing is we might have left him be if the inspections had been allowed to continue.

It's just so agrivating to hear that extremely lame arguement over and over from the left. If you are principled against war in general fine, but then that arguement doesn't suite you. So if that is your only arguement all I can say is "thick skull".

Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 04:04 AM
Hello Inane - funny thing is, I am a liberal - tolerant, generous, concerned, committed to policies which improve the human condition. On the other hand, I believe that evil exists, in every person, every culture in some measure. Some cultures reinforce those evil impulses, some reinforce the best in us. Jihadism is a naked expression of what I consider evil in that it is intolerant, cruel, rapacious, murderous and mendacious. It is based on lies and a peculiar mentality which glorifies victimization. Every institution in certain cultures reinforce and amplify these impulses. Because it is normative in certain cultures you cannot say it is insane, but by standards of reason and honesty, it surely is. Tolerate diversity? Yes. Tolerate evil? No.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 04:41 AM
In reply to:

If you don't agree with their Marxist-based drivel you apparently shouldn't participate in democratic activities, shouldn't express your opinion, and shouldn't walk on the sidewalks of NYC.


Hey, freedom of speech works both ways. If you don't agree with their neo-conservative drivel, you SHOULD participate in democratic activities (e.g. protesting) and SHOULD walk on the sidewalks of New York.

IMHO, they stepped up the 'newsworthiness' (I use that term loosely) of their protests because previous protests have been more or less ignored by the media -- yes, even the DAMN LIBERAL media. Now, I'm not condoning their actions, but mob mentality is a strange force...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 04:44 AM
In reply to:

To disregard Kerry's voting record and the consistent contradictions in his positions is like picking your heart surgeon based upon his/her charm and good looks and not their qualifications.


And what, exactly, were Bush's qualifications in the 2000 election? Take away his charm and uncanny knack of clouding the issues in a debate, and what are you left with?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 04:52 AM
2x6,

I agree with your assessment of the fomentation -- or was it fulmination -- of hatred, more or less. If there's anything we can learn from them it's this:

Mixing religion and nationalism is NEVER a good idea.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 05:53 AM
Yes, pmbuko, I understand that you have equated Zionism, the movement for a Jewish national homeland with Islamic-Fascism. You have confused nationalism with National Socialism. You have confused a non-evangelizing religion which desires to live in peace, with a religion which elevates the sword as its religious symbol of Jihad - conquest as the sign of divine election. You have confused a true democracy which tolerates people of all religions and confers full human rights including equal legal status, with a religious totalitarian system which is, in its essence, fundamentally intolerant. You have confused a political and national culture which confers full legal and human status to women with a system which treats them like donkeys, condones honor killing of women, clitorectomies, etc. You have confused a nation which outlaws slavery with a culture which is the last great bastion of slavery. I only mean this as a philosophical criticism, but your subtle implied comparison of Zionism to Islamo-Fascims is without historical or rational force.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 06:12 AM
Reasons to vote for Kerry without mentioning the "B" word.

1) The constitution is not meant to deny any group of people equal rights.

2) Stem Cell research should be funded.

3) If you don't believe that the US's role in the world is to topple any and all governments that we dislike.

4) If you want to keep Church and State separate.

5) Supreme court justice appointments.

6) If you believe in the U.N. and what it stands for.

7) If you are pro-choice.

8) If you believe in actively seeking and funding alternative fuel sources to help cut our dependancy on foreign oil, rather than simply drilling in our own national parks.

9) You want a President that will respect our allies.

...that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I can come up with more.


Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 06:29 AM
I believed in the United Nations, won a state essay prize of some United Nations Association while I was in HS. Had very high hopes for an organization which would dignify human rights and provide mechanisms for the elevation of the human condition.

What a farce! Instead, it is a club for the ruling classes of the most incredibly corrupt governments on earth, where they can all agree how terrible the United States is, and how much we owe them. The UN can appoint Syria to the chair of the Security Council, Somalia, Sudan and Libya to the human rights commission, and seriously discuss the problem of Jews using the blood of Moslem children to make Passover Matzoh and Purim cakes. The UN has become a debating society for despots and fools, a forum where France can lecture the United States about intervention in Iraq in order to protect France's siphoning of Billions of dollars in the UN's Food for Palaces program, and illegal weapons technology transfers to Iraq and Iran. That's what the UN now "stands for."

Yes, spiff, Bush's policy on stem cell research is moronic. We hope his war on terror does more violence to terrorists than to our constitution. Bush's policies intrude into personal choices of gender identity, he draws the line at gay-marriage, threatens a woman's right to choose. To say Bush is not the ideal candidate is an understatement.

That being said, these are dangerous times, we are under a relentless attack in a war of civilizations which we cannot negotiate, cannot appease and probably cannot win. Nevertheless, we are not given a choice as to whether to fight. Bush recognizes this. Kerry does not. Bush sees the world in black and white. Whether this is a function of a lack of intelligence or not, I think he's got it right. We got an ass-kicking cowboy just when we needed one.

Though a life-long democrat, this time around, I'm hitting for the other team.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 11:47 AM
2X6 - One word....AMEN!!!!! You truly get it.

I'm going to admit something that I rarely discuss...something that many might be surprised by. Four years ago, I stood there in the polling booth for a long time trying to figure out which man was better suited to be President. At that point in my life, I was well on my way in migration from the left to the middle, so Bush's fiscal and International policied appealed to me. However, many of his positions concerning social issues were very disturbing to me. So, I stood there trying to make this decision. In then end, I just couldn't vote for someone that advocated policies that infringed on certain people's rights, denied rights to others, and generally blurred the line between church and state. I put my mark next to Gore's name. My conscience truly wouldn't allow me to go the other way.

Now, it's four years later and my conscience will not allow me to vote based upon these issues. The ONLY issue right now needs to be the war on terror, because the handling of this situation over the next four years will ripple for years to come. Right now, my conscience will not allow me to endanger the lives of my family based upon social issues. The best I can hope for is that one of the candidate in the 2008 election really gets foreign policy, while maintaining a more libertarian stance on social issues.....Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 02:16 PM
Spiff-you hit the big bullets for an anti-Bush vote on the head. This administration doesn't understand that we can't achieve any sustainable peace with aggression.

The idea that this is a religous issue is ludicrous. These terrorists have as much to do with Islam as Bose does with good sound. I'm privileged to have a number of Muslims in my circle of friends. They were horrified with 9/11 and watch what goes on around the world "in the name of Islam" with dismay. They don't evangelize, put down women, or perform clitorectomies on their daughters. The idea that Islam is America's enemy is held by too many people in this country. This isn't a religous fight. We need to be extremely careful not to portray these terrorists as being the face of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Republican party has historically called for "less" government. Their platform, however, supports legislation against gay marriage and abortion. Basically legislating their version of morality. I've watched the Governor of our state and our state Senate do the same thing in Minnesota. They spent many days of the 2004 session arguing the gay marriage issue and at the end of the session had failed to pass a single meaningful piece of legislation. Health care, transportation, and even security issues got bypassed as these jokers tried to deny a group of American citizens equal rights and protection. That's the direction I see the conservative right wing of the Republican party leading us.

A challenge to you conservatives-give me 3 good reasons to vote for Bush and Cheney with anti-terrorism efforts excluded. Besides the security issues-what has this administration done to positively affect middle America. Has anyone in this forum seen a significant increase in their paychecks from the tax cut? Has anyone seen any improvement in anything other than the perception that we're somehow safer? I'm not saying that Kerry or anyone else can do better, I just don't understand all the support I'm hearing here for Bush. Those of you ridiculing Kerry's Senate record are right, he's weak. Please point out some strong points in Bush's record (other than he's tough on terror). He was a questionable businessman (check out his files with the Securities and Exchange Commission), pretty weak Governor, and certainly received no mandate with the 2000 electorate. If it wasn't for the Reagan/Bush era Supreme Court appointees, his road to the Oval Office would have been a bit tougher.

Just a hypothetical-what do the conservatives out there think will happen to this country if Bush isn't elected. Do you really think we'd see any major changes? Would a Kerry election really lead to Jihadic victory around the world? Bush can't decide if the war on terror can be won anyway, Monday it wasn't winnable, Tuesday it was. Flippity Flop indeed. I need a day off to listen to my Axioms.


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 02:30 PM
turbodog- you mentioned listening to the RUSH interview of george w.. did you happen to catch sean hannity's show? he went down to times square to do his "man on the streets" segment, and interviewed some young kids that were involved with the anti-bush protests. he was asking them why they hated bush, and why they liked kerry, etc.. so then, he says to one kid, "how do you like kerrys running mate, stu ped..?" stu ped, stupid!! and the kid was like, "oh, yes he is a young up and comer.. i like what he has to say and he would make a great vice president".. blah, blah, blah.. ignorance is bliss. its scares me how such young, blindly led kids are the ones who will be pushing the buttons when i am an old man.

i am not a bush hater, and i am not a kerry supporter. i am actually still up in the air as to who i am voting for. as usual, the choice comes down to the "not the worse" candidate. just once i would like it to be about 'who is better', instead of 'how is least worse'....

bigjohn
Posted By: littleb Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 04:22 PM
I don't have specifics. I'm referring to the so-called CIA report, which said that the Iraqi's were working on WMDs. Nobody seems to know where it came from, but everyone knows it's not true. The President says he wasn't involved. I really didn't want to get into a debate, I'll just say someone in the administration is not telling the truth. I believe that someone is in the oval office.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 04:33 PM
So, let me see if I understand what you're saying -

1. there was a "so called CIA report"
2. the report found that "Iraqis were working on WMD"
3. No body knows where the CIA report came from
4. Everyone knows the report's conclusion is "not true"
5. Someone in the administration is lying
6. You believe that someone is in the oval office.

You think everyone agrees that Iraq was not working on WMD? I don't believe that. I don't think the survivors of the Iraqi poison gas (WMD) attacks on the Kurds believe it. I don't think the thousands of Iranian military veterans burned by poison gas believe it.

We have not found substantial stashes of WMD in Iraq. This is bad. It means either that Iraq destroyed its WMD which we all know they had (because they used them littleb) or that they are still stashed in Iraq, or that they were moved to another country, probably Syria.

Don't you agree, littleb, that if Saddam Hussein had permitted the UN inspectors unrestricted access to Iraqi sites (access to which they were entitled by the terms of the armistice of Gulf War I) there would not have been a war?

Why do you think Bush is lying about WMD when the intelligence services of the US, France, Russia, UK, and others all believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was developing worse?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 04:36 PM
In reply to:

someone in the administration is not telling the truth



someone??

they are politicians man.. NONE OF THEM ARE TELLING THE TRUTH!!!

regardless of your party line, you are foolin' yourself if you dont think you are being lied to on a daily basis. its sad but true.

bigjohn
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 04:50 PM
Jorge writes:

In reply to:

The idea that this is a religous issue is ludicrous. These terrorists have as much to do with Islam as Bose does with good sound. I'm privileged to have a number of Muslims in my circle of friends. They were horrified with 9/11 and watch what goes on around the world "in the name of Islam" with dismay. They don't evangelize, put down women, or perform clitorectomies on their daughters. The idea that Islam is America's enemy is held by too many people in this country. This isn't a religous fight. We need to be extremely careful not to portray these terrorists as being the face of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth.




I'm not saying there aren't many wonderful human beings who are Muslim. Without doubt, there are. However, it is clear that 'moderates' do not speak for Saudi Arabia which exports the Wahabi Fundamentalist Party Line, one which does espouse terror and hatred. Your friends may not have celebrated the success of the 9/11 attacks, but can you deny the great celebrations which spilled into the streets of so many Muslim countries? Do you think it was someone other than Jihadists who attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and tried to fly a plane into our Capitol or White House on 9/11, or who blew up the USS Cole, or the Khobar Towers, or our embassies in Africa, or who beheaded Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, the 12 Nepalese and so many others? Why is there a Jihad war all over the world? Jihad against Hindu and Sikh in Kashmir and India, Jihad against Buddhist in Thailand and Indonesia, Jihad against Christian in Indonesia, Philippines - all over the world, Jihad against Jews - all over the world. Where is the outcry from Muslims at this relentless murder and warfare? The outcry I've heard is one which attempts to blame these acts on others - "Muslims couldn't do that, suicide is prohibited by Islam," but at the same time "Martyrdom" is not. We have heard a great cry, "don't blame us," but no acknowledgment of responsibility for a culture at war with the rest of the world.

Now, maybe at the end of the day, this war, this Jihad war being waged against the West will have to be fought by moderates, like your friends, against the Jihadists, a civil war. Who do you think would win? Where do you think the center of gravity of Islam rests? With moderates or Jihadists? We certainly haven't heard much from the moderates, and what we have heard appears to have been for Western consumption - that is, a message of peace directed toward our media, a message of war at home.

Now, your friends have not been disfigured by clitorectomies, but do you deny that Islamic society is characterized by a brutal oppression of women, a systematic denial of human rights to women, or that some such societies do require that girls be mutilated by clitorectomies?

Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 05:17 PM
So why are we still doing business with the Saudi's? Easy, we need their oil. Will Bush ever come down hard on the Saudi's? No way, the Bush family has made millions dealing with the Saudi's. Spending the billions we have spent on war in the Mideast on alternative energy source development and cutting our dependence on foreign oil would go a long way to changing the worlds political climate. Do you think the Saudi government would support the terrorists if the U.S. could threaten to cut off the petro-dollars. Do you think that Bush or Cheney have any desire to cut our need for oil in any way? Check out their past businesses and see if you can find ties to oil.

Center of gravity? There are millions of Muslims in the world, a calculated few are managing to disrupt and terrorize. Before we had 9/11 we had Oklahoma City-no Islamic Jihad there, just a couple of white guys from Kansas. We face (and always have) security threats from many different sources. My point is that fighting a supposed global terrorist threat by bombing Iraq is crazy. When and if peace is achieved in Iraq, will it be sustainable? And at what cost of American lives and dollars? I said it before-the world is a better place without Saddam, but this President's rush to war in Iraq will do little to improve the security of our country.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 05:25 PM
"Basically legislating their version of morality."

As opposed to yours?

Spiff gave good reasons to vote for Kerry - if that is how you feel about those issues.
But, I would ask you young liberal folks to re-examine your personal beliefs. Why do you hold the positions you do? Did you learn the "truth" from your university professors? From the media? From discussions with your friends? Or is it just that the liberal view is so tres chic? If so, then you have a lot of work to do.

Why have the older conservative guys generally won out in this thread? Is it because they're stubborn asses? Or is it because their political positions have been formed by personal reflections over a long period of years, stemming from a coherent core philosophy - rather than learned quickly from an expert in a classroom or as a politically expedient response to some single issue? When you tie your political positions to a broad philosophy about life, your arguments will likely be better reasoned and more easily defended. IMO, the philosophical basis for the modern liberal POV is the belief that capitalism is unfair - in other words, its philosophical basis is Marx.

IMO, voting for Kerry - and Democrats in general - continues our slide toward socialism and the loss of personal responsibility and individual freedoms. Not freedoms like smoking crack and ripping babies out of your womb, but freedoms like property rights, self determination (as a country and as individuals), freedom to enjoy the fruits of your labor, and those freedoms specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

As a Libertarian, I obviously have high regard for the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution - wanting strict and unwavering adherence to those principles regardless of "the changing times" - and a desire for personal freedom and individual accountability. Obviously, neither party has a candidate that fully embodies those principles, but I would sooner accept the socially conservative Republican than the socialist Democrat.

BTW, the educated position on abortion needs to be re-thought. With the advent of RU486 and widespread birth control availability in this country, there is no way abortions during the second trimester should be legal. It is barbaric, brutal, primitive, disgusting and simply wrong. Anyone who has seen an ultrasound of a 5 mo old fetus would have to agree, IMO.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 05:44 PM
BigWill don't get me wrong. I may be pro-Choice, but I'm seriously anti-abortion. I see people voting solely on one issue-it's not that easy. My point on the "legislating morality" comment was that the social issues (that affect very few in our society) kept our legislature from addressing issues that affect many.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 05:58 PM
Bigwill, you contradict yourself..

first you say that you have a.....
In reply to:

a desire for personal freedom and individual accountability



OK, that means for the right for a woman to do with HER body as she wishes, and not what you or some politician wants her to do.

then you say...
In reply to:

there is no way abortions during the second trimester should be legal




you express one mode of thought, then totally contradict it in your next paragraph.. i aint trying to jump on you or nothing, i am just saying it seems like you are doing a flip-flop, depending on the issue??

i personally, DO NOT believe in abortion. i to have seen ultrasounds, and they are babies in there, plain and simple.. BUT, with that said, i dont feel that i, OR ANYONE, has the right to tell a female what she can or cant do with her body. that is an issue that should be left up to the individual and her family, not the government.

so, im not agreeing or disagreeing with you.. just pointing out my impressions on your post.

bigjohn


Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 05:59 PM
We are dependant on imported hydrocarbon energy sources, as is every industrial society in the world. Saudi Arabia has the largest known oil pools in the world. Bush's energy policies are, IMO, poor. We should fund R&D for alternative energy paradigms, encourage conservation, and encourage increased domestic production of hydrocarbon energy sources.

The Saudis have done their best to corrupt our society. Former ambassadors, state department officials, presidents are all targeted by the Saudis with enormous financial rewards for their support of Saudi Arabia. This is the real retirement plan anticipated by many foreign service employees. Saudi Arabia corrupts our media with money, massive amounts of it used to buy favorable editorial positions. Saudi Arabia corrupts our educational institutions by funding departments of Islamic Studies which are staffed by Jihadists.

I think there's an enormous difference between the pre 9/11 and post 9/11 GW Bush - sort of like Shakespeare's Henry V. The Bush family was certainly up to its ears in Saudi favor before 9/11. I hope Pres. Bush sees them differently now. He is certainly presented with a conundrum, in that the despotic Saudi "royal family" holds itself out as a better alternative than the Wahabi Jihadists who the House of Saud claims are attempting to bring them down.

Sure would be nice if we were able to make a break through in Fusion energy research, quickly move to a hydrogen based economy, but in the meantime, the whole industrial world is competing for Saudi oil in the marketplace. If the US stopped buying Saudi oil, it wouldn't make any difference to Saudi output or revenues - the rest of the industrial world would pick up the difference in consumption.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world. I think you should check out Memri or other sites which report on what the media in these countries put out. The fat part of the bell curve of values normative in these societies is Jihadist Islam.

Do I think there will be peace in post war Iraq? No, I don't. I personally believe that Iraq is an unworkable creature of British/French WWI foreign policy. I'd favor giving the Kurds in the north their own state, the Sunis their own and the Shias their own. I think a Swiss style Canton system would work best. The alternative will necessarily be the emergence of another tyrant to hold that creature together.

I think the idea of a democracy in Iraq is overly optimistic. Where is there an Arab democracy in the entire world? However, the effort is noble, but it will be a target for disruption by all of Iraq's neighbors, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran - none of them want to see the emergence of a democratic society in Iraq. The effort has my best wishes.

Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein? How can anyone say it is not? At least we won't be the target of Iraqi nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Does the removal of Hussein make us safe from such attacks from Iran? That remains to be seen.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 06:24 PM
BigJohn... If our bodies are not within any government regulations... then...

1. Prostitution should be legal.
2. Drug use should be legal.
3. No woman should be prosecuted for harming a baby because of drug or alcohol use.
4. Seat belt laws should be repealed.

Posted By: ScottA Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 06:34 PM
BigWill,

I somewhat take offense to your description of a liberal as being a person that blindly accepts what they are told by their college professors and conservatives have put much thought and years into forming their views. Yes, I am a college graduate, and yes I had some liberal professors that pushed their views. I had just as many conservative professors that pushed theirs. I,as an educated adult, form my opinions through thought and experience. I am what you describe as a liberal. I enjoy nature and believe it should be there for my daughter to enjoy. I choose to help people that are less fortunate than I. I believe that we need not be policing the world, but taking care of our own. These are views I have developed on my own, due to my experiences. My father contracted polio at age four. Now at age sixty-four he has to rely on social security to survive. He was forced into early retirement from General Motors due to health issues resulting from Polio. He did not choose to contract Polio. He was simply unlucky. It was nothing he or his family did that led to his handicap. Do we simply ingnore the needs of these people, because they are unable to work and pay their own way? We found out in January that my wife, that is thirty-seven years old has breast cancer. She underwent a masectomy and 8 rounds of chemo. Thank goodness for insurance. I cannot imagine what we would do if we did not have it like many in our country. Between my wife and I we make good money. Over six figures. But without insurance, it would be devastating. Me, my wife, or my 11 year old daughter did anything to contribute to my wife's breast cancer. These life experiences lead me to be a liberal, someone who cares about other human beings. If that in some way makes me a "bad" person, then so be it.

I have many friends that are conservative. Do I think any less of them, no. But many times they argue what Rush Limbaugh said or what G. Gordon Liddy said or Pat White said. They simply spew the phrases I have already heard a million times.

Sorry for the ramble, but I felt the need.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 06:51 PM
ScottA ... I take offense to YOU.

1. What makes you think being a liberal means you care more about others. The evil Dick Cheyney donated over 25% of his gross income to charity last year... the highest % of the four (Bush, Kerry, Edwards, Cheyney). And personally my wife and I donate over $100k per year to charity. We built our businesses from scratch.. no government help at all.

2. If you cannt afford insurance in the US... a hospital HAS to take care of you... and can bill the govt.

3. Our 13 year old is diabetic, as in your example, he did not choose to get it. $50k of the above mentioned donations go to Diabetes research. Plus we pay for our own insurance.

4. Policing the world... Who got the Vietnam war going ? Democrats. Kosovo ? Democrats. Korea? Democrats. Grenada ? Republicans. Iraq ? Republicans... This is not a liberal/conservative issue... by the way, we spend appx. $40 domestically for every $1 on foreign aid.

Understanding that I was responsible for myself, and that working directly to improve my life as well as the lives of my family and employees led me to being a conservative. The other areas that led me to conservatism is that absolute corruption that exists in ALL government programs.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 07:01 PM
craig sub,

i think prostitution SHOULD be legal.. it is in one state..and its regulated, and it works. just cause a guy is lonely and dont have no girl.. it dont make it right to arrest him cause he is willing to pay for a service? or the female either cause she is willing to provide a service. its seen as a social stigma, but truth is, its been going on for thousands of years, and it always will.

i think 'natural' occuring drugs should be legal. if it grows natural, and requires NO human intervention to grow or multiply, then it should be legal. marijuana, mushrooms, peyode, etc.. these are natural, elements in nature, that have grown on their own for once again, thousands of years. why is it illegal to plant a marijuana seed and harvest its production, but its legal to plant a tomato seed and eat the tomatoes? this is a simpleton way of looking at it, but thats just how i see it.

#3 is a touchy one, i got no answers there.

and seat belts.. thats a hard one.. texas has mandatory seat belt law, and i abide by it. but, texas is also a no helmet law state, ??? does that make sense.. i think the line between prevention and control gets blurred here.. i think laws that are designed at 'preventing', and laws that are designed at 'controlling' fall into separate categories.

i know my views and beliefs probably aint the norm, and thats OK.. i think my 'moral compass' may not point the same direction as others. but i know one thing, regardless of something being a law or not, most of this argument boils down to personal accountability. people know what is right and wrong. i dont need the law to tell me that. main problem is, the government cant divide the nation into people that have the ability to know the difference between right and wrong, and those who cant.. so, they are forced to make extreme laws that blanket a whole section of people, even if those people are just fine with the way things are.

OK, i am on the chopping block now.. so have at it.

bigjohn
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 07:03 PM
Well, here's the deal, fellas. I have opinions which can be characterized as 'liberal,' and others which can be characterized as 'conservative.' If a gang of masked Islamic Jihadists takes you hostage, ties you up, puts you in front of a video camera, chants 'Allah is Great,' puts the dull sword to your throat, do you think the fact you are a liberal or a conservative will have any effect on the outcome of the situation?

We argue with each other. That comes with the territory of democracy. Liberals insult conservatives, and vice versa. "How can you be so blind ... how can you be so stupid ... I take offense at ..." We discuss policy, we try to convince each other that Kerry is a better candidate, or that Bush is, nevertheless, we are tolerant ... we accept that Kerry may win the election, or that Bush may win, and that the winner is our president. We may disagree with their policies and decisions, but though our disagreement may be spirited, heated, and insulting, we particiipate in a pluralistic, democratic socio/political system.

That system, our society, our values, our people are under attack. We did not make war on Jihadist Islamicists. They are making war on us. We can ignore the war ... it won't stop. We have to plan for a long dispute ... decades, maybe centuries long. Spooky, unnerving, but true.
Posted By: ScottA Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 07:13 PM
Craig,

Twist as you wish. I did not ever state that Liberals cared more about people than conservatives. I was simply stating to BigWill that my views are not simply based on what I have learned from my college professors. I have formed my opinions over time as well.

I live in a very conservative based state. Most of my friends are conservative. Most of them believe that all democrats or liberals are evil because we support some government programs for those who need it. I stress those who need it. I work in law enforcement as a Probation Officer. I supervise hundreds of people on a daily basis. Believe me, I see the worst of the worst. People who do not want to work and rely on others to live. Those people in my opinion deserve nothing. The problem is I believe we lump these people together with those who are truly in need. And there are those that are truly in need.

One of the main reasons I typically stay out of political discussions is exactly what you did with your first statement. You take offense to me personally and know absolutely nothing about me. I took offense to BigWill's classifying me as a blind follower unable to form my own opinions, not him personally. There is a difference. That is the problem. We all have differing opinions, but some get angry if others do not agree with their own.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 07:39 PM
Dick Cheney can afford to give more to charity. He collects more in deferred compensation from Halliburton than he makes as VP. Maybe his charitable donations help to soothe his conscience after porking out at the government trough as head of that company.
Posted By: littleb Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 07:42 PM
I agree that Saddam Hussein is and was a bad man. The world is full of bad men. We haven't gone to war with them. I just don't believe that the 2nd Iraqi war was necessary at this moment in time as the administration has claimed. War should only be an option when there are no other options. It appears that our young men and women are being put in harm's way at the wim of administration officials. I believe that this is just wrong.




Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 08:26 PM
Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer. Iraq is full of mass graves. He was a torturer. He belongs in a box. Just because there are other "bad men," doesn't mean we're not better off with Saddam in a cell. As to the rest of them, may they be put in adjoining accommodations quickly.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 09:37 PM
Some more ramblings from one of these dastardly conservatives....

1. I used to be a Liberal. The problem is that I grew up with these idealistic views about life and how the world should be. However, as I got older, I realized that the utopia that I used to espouse required that all involved pulled their weight equally and the government was effective. The problem with that vision is that we have a large segment of society that believes that utopia is achieved via redistribution of wealth and not by hard work and determination. This is dwarfed by the larger problem of our government's inefficiency. Our government is a picture of inefficiency and the concept of providing them 1 cent more than we have to is ludicrous. They have proven beyond a doubt that they are completely corrupt, inept, inefficient, and self-centered. Pair the two together and you have a group of society that believes the government is the savior and a government that is not worthy of 1 ounce of that respect.

2. I'm getting tired of the PC approach to this war on terror. The media is petrified to use the term "Islamic Terrrorist". The Liberals will jump on you stating that these extremists are not representative of Islam. The problem here is that no one wants to tell it like it is. No matter what is at the core of Islam, the extremists, terrorists, and varying regimes are running the show in modern Islam. Like some have said here, the only face of Islam we see is that of the oppressors/despots/terrorists. What you do not hear is anyone in the Islamic world piping in to condemn what is going on. What you don't see is the Muslim world policing itself. All we see is daily terror attack around the world in the name of Islam. It's time for the world to wake up and smell the coffee and call this thing what it is.

3. Abortion is a quagmire, which will probably never be solved. I personally am pro-choice, but I agree that the pro-choice position needs to be revised. Pro-choicers are so scared to allow any revisions to this policy and will not consider the position that late-term abortions should be considered in a different light than early-term abortions (except in the case of mother's safety). This is the only real possibility for the two sides to compromise.

4. The Left constantly pounds on Republicans on their energy policies and our dependance on foreign oil, yet they continue to listen to the extreme environmentalists and oppose drilling in Anwar (spelling?). The GreanPeace nazis continually fight this tooth and nail and then gripe about foreign oil dependancies. What they don't discuss is the fact that this area is a completely desolate and useless area of Alaska comparable to the stepps of Russia. Yes, it will be good to have electric/hydrogen/garbage powered cars, but the technology, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness isn't there yet. So they need to put a cork in the rhetoric and let us tap a resource that is there gathering snow and dust.

5. Tragedies happen in life and my heart goes out to people that suffer from all of the medical tragedies that afflict people. But, people need to be careful about using this as justification for things like universal healthcare. There is a price-tag for that promise the democrats are making about everyone having healthcare equivalent to what congress enjoys. Right now, we can't afford it. We have safety nets for those that are truly needy. Perhaps those safety nets need to be modified/updated...I can't speak to that. However, I cringe when I hear people use personal tragedy as the driver for socialistic policies. We need to be looking at policies such as group plans for small-business owners and individuals that will allow them to get the same buying power as large companies. We should not be looking at the government to be footing the tab. When we do that, we are again going down the road of expecting governement and the taxpayers to do what we should be doing for ourselves.

I could go on, but I'm tired and have to get home to the family.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 10:47 PM
You see... Having a real dialog is impossible on this. Who was the President when Cheney worked for Haliburton ? Bill Clinton... So, in order for this to fly, you have to think Bill Clinton was in on this with Cheyney... "porked out at the government trough" ...

Cheyney's total contribution was based on 1.2 mill in income ... and he donated more than his entire VP salary...

The vitriol could go on forever... Kerry's donations amount to .025 % of The family fortune...

Anyway... It is not really appropriate for me to comment further... I am not really a "regular" here... please ignore all my posts... and enjoy your speakers
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 11:33 PM
"Anyway... It is not really appropriate for me to comment further... I am not really a "regular" here... please ignore all my posts... and enjoy your speakers"

Craig, newbies and old-timers are equally welcome to contribute to these forums. All input is welcome...even the lunatic leftists. Plus, you can't give up that easy.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/01/04 11:58 PM
Hey Craig, I hope you stick around.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 12:19 AM
I don't see any contradiction at all, assuming the baby is an individual with rights and freedoms that all individuals should have. The freedom to kill others wantonly isn't part of any sane person's philosophy I hope.
I'm still "pro-choice", but only early, early, early in the pregnancy.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 12:27 AM
Craigsub...

In reply to:

BigJohn... If our bodies are not within any government regulations... then...

1. Prostitution should be legal.
2. Drug use should be legal.
3. No woman should be prosecuted for harming a baby because of drug or alcohol use.
4. Seat belt laws should be repealed.




1) yep
2) yep
3) you may have me there
4) yep

I guess it boils down to seeing the world in a different way. In your attempt to catch BigJohn in a pickle, you've listed things that I actually agree with.

I guess that's redundant...now having read BigJohn's response as well. Oh well. I guess it just adds to my point.




Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 12:48 AM
I'm sorry I offended you, Scott, but if you will read my post again (carefully, as I just did ), you will see that I did not in any way infer that the liberal position is philosophically baseless, or that people who hold that view have not reasoned their way through to those positions. I merely stated that the philosophical core to modern liberalism is, IMO, Marx.

I did say (and I'll stand by it) that many of the young folks out there - like the moronic protestors in NY, and a few wonderful but confused members of this forum - may not realize that to advocate for gay rights, drug legalization, abortion rights, etc..., while simultaneously advocating redistributive tax policy, strict limits on the development and/or use of private property, environmental restrictions, etc..., does not reflect a consistent philosophical point of view. You are either FOR individual freedoms OR you are FOR government regulation of individual behavior for the greater good. Everybody seems to want to pick and choose which freedoms they want to keep for themselves and which ones they want to take from others.

Who's writing that stuff for you, 2x6? It is just too good!
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 01:45 AM
In reply to:

...but your subtle implied comparison of Zionism to Islamo-Fascims is without historical or rational force.


I meant no such thing. This subtle implication was fabricated in your own mind.

However, since you brought it up, if Israel's nationalism is founded solely upon religion (e.g. God says this land is ours), then it is indeed flawed. Why? Because other religions think the exact same thing, and far be it from you or me to tell them they are wrong. (That would be culturally insensitive, of course.)
Posted By: ScottA Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 02:39 AM
BigWill,

No need to apologize. I did not take what you said as a personal attack on me. Craigsub took care of that. I just felt like you were clumping anyone with liberal ideas into a category of mouth puppets. I have formed my views over time and through experience. You are right that many younger people, such as some of the protesters, are oblivious to what is actually going on. But I see that from both sides.

I have both liberal views and conservative views. I classify myself as independent and will vote for who I think will do the best job. Period. I am conservative in that I think government should cut spending and let me keep more of my check. I think the major cutd should come in foreign aid though. We need to worry about our country first.

When it comes to the environment, I am deffinitely more liberal. We are too dependant on oil and natural gas. We need to develop alternative fuels. We have the technology in many cases already, but our goverment does not push those alternatives.

Even though I work in law enforcement, I believe some drugs should be legalized. We create problems by making marijuana illegal just as we did when we made another drug, alcohol, illegal during prohibition. It did not work because the demand was always there. We created crime by creating bootleggers and organized crime organizations. Our jails and prisons in Indiana are all overcrowded. We are releasing people early to make room. I would rather use the room for serious criminals. I use an example. I had a man in Court that molested three young girls. A class C felony in out state. He received an 8 year sentence. Another man that was dealing in a lookalike substance, not even a drug, but powdered sugar, received a 15 year sentence. You tell me who should be locked up longer.

I think this nation is so polarized into democrats/republicans, liberals/conservatives that nothing effective can be done. We need to work together to fix al the problems or we never will.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 02:52 AM
In reply to:

1) The constitution is not meant to deny any group of people equal rights.




I will agree


In reply to:

2) Stem Cell research should be funded.




It is, obviously not to the amount of everyones liking.


In reply to:

3) If you don't believe that the US's role in the world is to topple any and all governments that we dislike.




This belief is a based on twisting a disagreement of our actions in Iraq. I would agree we should not topple every wrong government, but this war on terror may and will demand we put an end to governments that support terror. Yes Iran and Sierra are on notice.


In reply to:

4) If you want to keep Church and State separate.




/sigh, I'm not religious but its completely obvious to me GW is a religious man but in no way does he merge church and state.


In reply to:

5) Supreme court justice appointments.




Absolutely! We totally need to remove judges that CREATE law instead of interpret law. This could be the single most important issue that doesn't get enough discussion.


In reply to:

6) If you believe in the U.N. and what it stands for.




Well I definitely don't support what the U.N. stands for... which is blatent anti-US policies. As stated here before there are more dictatorship governments represented there than any other. EVERY government there is only concerned about what is in their own best interest. The Sudan situation PROVES this point perfectly. It's a no brainer, go in and stop the killing.


In reply to:

7) If you are pro-choice.




I am completely for choice, it just seems the baby is the one without the choice to decide to live or die.


In reply to:

8) If you believe in actively seeking and funding alternative fuel sources to help cut our dependancy on foreign oil, rather than simply drilling in our own national parks.




More could be done on this issue, I won't argue it.


In reply to:

9) You want a President that will respect our allies.




What "allies" do we disrespect? I believe its the other way around here.

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 03:29 AM
Scott... I did not attack you, I took offense at your words. "These life experiences lead me to be a liberal, someone who cares about other human beings."

That means someone who is NOT liberal does NOT care.

In an ironic twist... My wife needed to go to the Hospital tonight... Allergic reaction to some food. There was a sign in the ER ....:

ITS THE LAW. IF YOU ENTER THE ER, WE MUST GIVE YOU THE BEST CARE WE CAN PROVIDE, INCLUDING PROVIDING AMBULANCE SERVICE TO ANOTHER MEDICAL FACILITY, EVEN IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY NOR INSURANCE TO PAY FOR TREATMENTS RECEIVED. WE ARE GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE REIMBURSED FOR SERVICES RENDERED."

It does get tiring to be told how unfeeling we are because of all the people without insurance.

I also know scores of people, from business owners to factory workers to teachers to engineers. I have NEVER heard someone say those TRULY in need should not get the help he/she needs. My bride is fine, BTW...:)
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 03:59 AM
Good to hear.

Talking about life experiences (I apologize to whomever heard this story in a PM already), I was shopping in a Vegas grocery store a few years ago, avoided the expensive beer I really wanted and decided on a beer that was on sale. Immediately in front of me at the check-out stand was a couple - mid 40s probably - buying all kinds of name brand stuff: Hagen Daz, Evian, filet mignon, etc... The lady paid for her fancy groceries with vouchers or food stamps or something while the man whipped out a wad of bills and paid for a $30 bottle of VSOP with cash! I felt like I was watching a crime take place.
I've only had Hagen Daz 3 times, and I've never had Evian.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 06:10 AM
In reply to:

I've only had Hagen Daz 3 times, and I've never had Evian.


You might be missing out on the ice cream, but you're definitely not missing out on the water. Read "Evian" backwards and that's what you have to be to pay that much for water.
Posted By: ScottA Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 01:12 PM
Craigsub,

Sorry, apparently I took the "YOU" in capital letters differently than you intended. You are correct in that a hospital cannot refuse emergency care to anyone in need. I understand that, my wife works in the medical field.

I definitely do not think all conservatives are uncaring. That would be ridiculous. There are also many uncarring liberals. There are always those that worry only about themselves.

I get tired of hearing how every individual that needs assistance is some kind of evil lowlife scum. Yes there are abuses, but there are those that truly need assistance. The handicapped did not choose to be that way, but if not for many programs they would find it difficult to survive. I described my fathers case and frankly it pisses me off to hear people basically say it is his fault and he should receive no assistance. We tend to focus on the abuses in any program and assume everyone is like those who abuse. That is not the case.

As a kid, I worked in a convenience store and saw the same abuse with foodstamps. People would by food with the stamps and save their cash for alcohol and cigarettes. Clearly an abuse of the system. But I have seen others that do work, but need foodstamps to help feed their families.

Like I said before, things are not black and white no matter how much we would like them to be.

Scott
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 03:32 PM
Food Stamps are an example of what's wrong with this government. I'm sure that the food stamp program costs billions of dollars, with at least half that figure the cost of the beaurocracy that administers the program. Why not just place barrels of beans and rice in every grocery store that anybody can take for free? Nobody would starve, and this would cost a fraction of what the food stamp program costs.

Mark
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 04:28 PM
In reply to:

I get tired of hearing how every individual that needs assistance is some kind of evil lowlife scum.




I get tired of hearing how every individual that needs assistance is a victim. IMO, most people who wind up on welfare are there because of their own choices. True, most handicapped did not choose to be that way, but when you start making alcohol and drug abuse a "handicap", your argument breaks down.

If I want to have a child, I have to think about whether my income level will support that child, and how I am going to pay for its food, clothing and shelter. These realities affect my reproductive freedom. Suggest that welfare recipients be encouraged to stop having children, and you are compared unfavorably to a Nazi.

I am tired of being told that i am "rich". Whenever a tax cut is proposed, the left cries "it's for the rich!" Well guess what? There is no such thing as a tax cut for the poor. The poor don't pay taxes. The poor get tax credits. Low income workers can get a refund that is much bigger than their tax withheld. It's called the "earned income credit". You can't cut taxes for people who pay negative tax.

Before World War II, government spending averaged about 3% of the GNP. Today that figure is 40%. Think about that. 40 cents of every dollar generated in this country is consumed by the government. Some want to add the cost of one of the largest industries in the nation, namely health care, to that number. This would be an absolute disaster. Can you think of anything that the government does more efficiently and at a lower cost than private industry?

Mark
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 04:39 PM
In reply to:

I am tired of being told that i am "rich". Whenever a tax cut is proposed, the left cries "it's for the rich!" Well guess what? There is no such thing as a tax cut for the poor. The poor don't pay taxes. The poor get tax credits. Low income workers can get a refund that is much bigger than their tax withheld. It's called the "earned income credit". You can't cut taxes for people who pay negative tax.



I don't think most people who cry about tax cuts for the rich are suggesting that the tax cuts need to be for the poor. As you point out, the truly poor pay little or no taxes. It's the bulk of the middle class that's pissed. Cutting taxes of dividend income was CLEARLY a free pass for the ultra wealthy to get even wealthier. In fact, since that tax cut went into effect, many, many CEO's and other corporate big wigs have cut their "salaries" and given themselves huge dividend payments.

While I don't really agree with the estate tax, the cut again benefitted only the ultra rich. What most people don't realize is that the first $200,000 of inheritence was never taxed before. It's only the amount OVER $200,000 that was taxed. So again...who benefited from that? I dispise "trickle down economics". America benefits as middle America benefits.


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 07:50 PM
Bigwill- i can totally relate to your story. few weeks back i am at the grocery store and the family in front of me(with their 5 kids) had 2 carts of merchandise.. the funny part was, one cart was food, the other was hygeine stuff(detergent, soap, school supplies, etc). they pay cash for the non-food, and then whip out a government food card for the rest.. and in the food basket was, $8 dollar a pound T-bone steaks, ben and jerry ice cream, deli grade sliced cold cuts and cheeses, expensive cereals, and all 'name brand' products. it pissed me off, cause i dont get to eat the high end, name brand food.. and i sure dont have the government paying for it. they should put restrictions on it like they do the WIC programs.

i was fumming when i went home that day. and went home and made dinner.. generic rice and beans, and ground round meatloaf.. some T-bones would have sure been nice..

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 09:37 PM
Spiff... Acutally, If you have a really good tax attorney (like one who is also a CPA).. You can get around the majority of estate taxes. The other thing to remember is you paid income taxes on all your earning, then the government wants to take half your money again after you die... like being dead was not already tough enough.


Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 09:41 PM
Like I said, I don't agree with the estate tax at all. My point was that the new cut was again aimed at helping the overtly rich.


Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 09:43 PM
Spiff,

Have you ever taken a look at the Tax Burden Statistics or the Breakdown of Taxpayers? I hear Liberals often speak with disdain for "the wealthy" and any tax relief that the evil Republicans want to give them. However, what you never hear them admit is the fact that the top 40% of wagearners in the US carry 85% of the tax burden. The top 10% of wageearners carry almost 50% of that burden.

You guys piss and moan about the wealthy and all the perks they get from tax relief....but who is the one paying the tab for this thing? I am one of those that fall in that fourth quartile and I'm frankly tired of paying so much damn taxes. I have student loan payments, my kids future, and my retirement to figure out how to afford. However, the big disgusting government suck-machine draws a huge chunk of my paycheck each month to fund all of this eternal crap that the spend-hounds dream up.

You are about to type in a response talking about Bush's spending and I agree with you. However, your guy is the undisputed king of the Senate Liberals and he has absolutely NO plans on lessening the burden on me and my family. Bush may have his spending policies out of whack, but he's the best chance of the two to put a stop to this eternal mission of the Left to pull well-earned money out of my pocket and distribute it to the "downtrodden masses"....not to mention the fact that he is the only one of the two that truly knows what it means to be commander and chief of the armed forces of this nation and the protector of our nation from the threats from abroad.

(end speech)
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 09:46 PM
Now, how about that Zell Miller?....blistering!!!! Hoo-Rah!!! It's about time someone had the cahones to take off the mittens and tell it like it is.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 11:30 PM
In reply to:

not to mention the fact that he is the only one of the two that truly knows what it means to be commander and chief of the armed forces of this nation and the protector of our nation from the threats from abroad.



Huh? You're holding it against Kerry that he's not currently President? That makes no sense whatsoever. The only reason GW "...truly knows what it means to be commander and chief of the armed forces of this nation..." is because he's currently holding that title. How much did he know about it 4 years ago? Squat. Just like every other Presidential hopeful. (except perhaps Grant and Ike)


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 11:37 PM
"The handicapped did not choose to be that way, but if not for many programs they would find it difficult to survive."

My wife just recently quit her state job working with the severely developmentally disabled, so I reckon it is safe to bash the agency for which she worked.
Huge amounts of money are wasted on programs for people who have IQs lower than your cat's. All those people need, IMO, is to be well cared for - clean, safe, fed, etc... What we do instead is waste millions and millions of dollars on feel good programs (vocational training, horse therapy, etc...) and pay out millions more to settle or defend frivilous lawsuits based on the IDEA.

Every gov't employee knows that the purpose of their particular agency is the expansion of that agency's budget and payroll first and foremost, and the delivery of services a distant second. It is the same story across the board in every agency: health and human services, education, corrections, welfare, motor vehicles, etc...

We would be much better off if families and communities took care of their own, rather than turn to gov't programs.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/02/04 11:41 PM
In reply to:

I am one of those that fall in that fourth quartile and I'm frankly tired of paying so much damn taxes.



So am I (if I'm reading that thing right)...and you know what GW's going to do for us? Jack Squat. NOTHING. What makes you think otherwise?

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 12:02 AM
What I'm holding against Kerry is that he has spent the past 15 years trying to recklessly gutt defense spending while we were in the midst of the Cold War. Then, once Russia had crumbled, he used it as a justification to cease all modernization of our military. You cannot read through the list of weapons systems that he voted against and truthfully say that he has a sound understanding of what it takes to defend this country and fully support our troops. The tomahawks that he voted against saved thousands of American lives by minimizing the level of combat our military had to undertake during the first Gulf War. The Apache helicopter and the Bradley vehicles that he voted not to fund are the very tools that made the initial stages of this Gulf War so successful and minimized US casualties. We all want defense spending to be reduced over time, but Kerry has taken an incredible reckless and illogical approach to this position....one which endangers our nation and the very soldiers that he wishes to command. Bush may frustrate many on various fronts, but he would never take such a ignorant/simplistic/reckless tack when it comes to the men and women of our armed forces and the people of this nation.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 12:07 AM
I'm not sure how he voted regarding the big tank we now have (the one that seems virtually impervious to everything and can go 60mph), but I remember many Democrats saying that we didn't need them and the key to all future wars will be airpower. Only partially correct. Those tanks are worth every penny.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 12:11 AM
Spiff,

If you are in the 4 quartile, you are "the rich" that your party villifies. At bare minimum, you are the top end of the beloved middle class. If you are indeed in this segment, you carry your share of the vast majority of the taxes of this nation. You are a primary contibutor to this disgusting menace of a government. If you are indeed a part of this segment, your party is only really concerned with latching onto the utter that the government has strapped you with. As a member of this group of society, your only hope for reducing your tax burden is the party that seeks to reduce overall taxes....and I hate to tell you that it is not your party. Your boy may share yours and my views about social issues such as gay marriage, but he sure as hell doesn't share our desire to keep more money in our own pockets...money to be used for our own retirement, our children's educations, and our own general use. Then again, he doesn't have to worry about those thing with his cash cow laying next to him.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 12:16 AM
I didn't hear the M1 discussed either today or last night, but it wouldn't surprise me if he voted against it. Yes, that awesome machine is worth every penny, just like the Apache and the Bradlies. Oh....and don't forget the F14s. We really didn't need those, did we? John Kerry is a pacifist. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not what we need in the White House. The world is way too dangerous right now to have a dove and not a hawk in the Oval Office (his terms).
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 12:19 AM
Again...do you not understand that any tax cuts that GW makes, will have ZERO effect on your paycheck? Your wallet is not going to get fatter with GW in office. You're only kidding yourself if you think it will.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 12:55 AM
He gave me a $600 check a couple years ago. When was the last time an elected official had that kind of impact on your daily life?
Posted By: md55 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 12:55 AM
I would also add that while researching the other day, I came accross the GOP website showing Kerry's votes on those weapons systems. I noticed the votes were grouped together on the the same few days. He was voting on larger appropriations bills in which those were included. And then with a little more research I learned that others were also calling for cuts in those weapons programs: President George F. Bush and Secratary of Defense Dick Cheney. Always good to fact check in the midst of a ferrocious political(propaganda) campaign. I don't take anything I hear at face value, in fact most of the time, whatever is repeated over and over in campaigns like this I find that more likely the opposite is true.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:13 AM
I actually got a $300 check, and to be honest I think our country would have been better off if they'd kept the money. What serious effect is a $300 check in individual hands going to do for the economy?


Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:19 AM
Spiff,

If I'm understanding what I find out there on the Internet and that site I posted, the name associated w/ Bush's tax reform was "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act" (EGTRRA, 2001). Take a look at this table siting the Tax Burden Distribution Pre & Post Tax Reform. If I'm reading this right, I see a grand in my pocket that the blood-suckers can't spend on their special interest-driven pork projects. If you look at this table, you can see the distribution of the benefit of that tax reform. Looking at both of these, it sure as heck doesn't look to me like the only ones receiving the benefit is the uber-rich. But then again, to tell this story in the true light would be less effective as a Democrat scare tactic. God forbid a Republican did something that benefitted all involved. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why your party skews the data so dramatically to suit their purposes. Then again, they have been doing that for years. Trust me, I used to buy into it hook,line, and sinker before I decided to check the facts myself and discovered the deception.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:22 AM
Spiff... When 125,000,000 people get $300... $37,500,000,000 gets spent. That is 37.5 BILLION dollars... By the way, I plugged in the average increase in weekly take home pay for our employees when the new tax laws went into effect... they averaged $27 per week MORE take home pay. Take out the entry level jobs, and the increase went to $41 per week...
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:32 AM
"I actually got a $300 check, and to be honest I think our country would have been better off if they'd kept the money. What serious effect is a $300 check in individual hands going to do for the economy?"

I think that I understand you a little better after reading this. You truly do believe that our government can better manage our money. You truly believe that our government has any shred of efficiency worth that level of trust. How many "Fleecing of America" and programs of the like do you need to see before you realize that they are completely inept at managing their affairs and your money. Whatever they actually appropriate to the local organizations is pillaged completely along the way until there is next to nothing for the cause for which the funds were destined. The only money that reaches it's destination is federal subsidies, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is nothing more than a handout from the government trough.....a pure example of redistribution of wealth. It makes want to puke thinking about the utter waste in government and it ticks me off to no end to know that people still live with blinders on and believe that the system works.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:36 AM
Craig....you just couldn't stay away. Good to have u back.

I have to agree, I wouldn't mind another $600 buck in my pocket right now. I would pay some bills off and probably spend the rest on daily expenses and some goodies for the kid.....oh, wait....Isn't that contributing to the economy.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:46 AM
Turbo... Several VERY nice forum members extended an invitation to stay... with hosts like that, it would be rude to leave... Here is another interesting site...

www.det.state.ri.us/lmi/lausus/usadj.htm

It shows total labor pool, total jobs, and unemployment rate going back to 1978. The media keeps hammering on job losses... in january, 2001.... there were 137,790,000 jobs ... today, there are 139,660,000 jobs... that is an increase of 1,870,000 jobs in the 3.5 years... Considering all we have been through.....

The source, by the way, is the Bureau of Labor Statistics....


Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 02:20 AM
A check for $600 from Uncle Sam and I'd probably be able to rationalize a new EP600 ... that wouldn't help the US economy, but would shake my house.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 02:26 AM
Sure it would help... It would add to the Canadian economy, so they have more money to come to the U.S. for health care when they cannot get into a hospital there...
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 02:30 AM
Ahh! Thank you Craigsub! It would be a good thing!
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 03:48 AM
Craig....do us a favor and repost the link. It doesn't seem to be working. I tried to get there via the main site, but couldn't replicate the path.

FYI....If you want to post it as a hyperlink, do the following:

1. [url]www.yahoo.com[/url
(Add a bracket to end - makes the link clickable)
2. [url=full link including the http://]DOG[/url] - displays "DOG" with hyperlink to yahoo

If I'm not making sense, you can see this under the FAQ
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 04:27 AM
TD... I will work on it tomorrow...
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 05:44 AM
I just wanted to say I thought GW gave a very good speech tonite. Of course the left will shrug it off as more lies and such but I'm hoping the fair minded moderates will hear it and understand that this man is not the devil protrayed by some.

I stayed up to catch Kerry's response... he left Edwards try to talk smack first, they virtually had to make up stuff... saying the RNC was all about mud slinging and such, um I watched most of the RNC, they definitely went after Kerry but I don't see how you could say it was dirty (Zell MAYBE but hell, hes a Democrat )

Furthermore, Kerry pulled the "they didn't serve" card out, Talk about hypocracy (accusing RNC of being dirty then saying that). I think that will backfire, esp considering several times during the RNC Cheany and Bush said nothing but good things about Kerry's service. Kerry is desperate and its starting to show big time. I can't wait for teh debates.

Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 11:08 AM
As far as the rebates go, one of my major issues with the govt. is the deficit that we continue to build up as a country. I'm not going to argue with an extra couple hundred bucks in my pocket, but I don't know how W could give that kind of money out to so many people when we owe so much. I would have been fine with the govt. keeping it, as long as there was a stipulation that it would not go towards any more spending on programs and would go directly to paying down the deficit.

I'd also like to see the govt forced to balance their books for future spending and actually plan for at least a small surplus every year so that eventually they can at least have a plan to pay off this enourmous debt. Any business would have filed Chapter 11 long ago.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 11:21 AM
Zarak - Let not your heart be troubled... In the last 20 Years, yes, the national debt has gone up $5 trillion dollars... but the wealth of the country has gone up $25 trillion... a net $20 trillion increase.

Look at it under two lights... You buy a lot worth $150,000, and borrow $100,000 ... then you build on it, and now owe $600,000, but the house is worth $2.5 million ... is that good ?

Also... If you could wipe out the debt, but lose the $25 trillion in increased equity... the country would be in a depression that makes the 30's look like a picnic.

Oh... and the entire deficit is due to increased spending... not tax rate cuts. (note... I did not say tax cuts... we brought in MORE revenue this year than in 2000)
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 12:17 PM
"Let no your heart be troubled" - Craig, you crack me up....only three hours a day, that's all he asks.

Zarak - You're right about the government needing to balance it's books. However, wartime spending is always going to send the budget into the red, as it is never budgeted. Bush made a decision to follow through on his pledge to reduce taxes and try to help infuse the economy. This also helped to put the budget in the red. The key is if and how he is going to offset that imbalance. My fingers are tightly crossed hoping that he takes his second term( ) and focuses on reducing unnecessary spending.

Inane - Thanks for giving the report on Kerry's post-convention koombaya session. Fox had given a preview of what Kerry was going to focus on, so we decided to pack it in. It sounds like he held true to form....what an idiot. After a convention like that, the blistering criticism of his Senate record, and Bush's strong speech, how does he think that continuing to focus on war-records is the way to go? Multiple speakers at the convention called him out solely upon his Senate record and he returns fire based upon Bush and Cheeney's Vietnam records.....both of which have been dealt with ad nosium.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like Kerry is coming a bit unhinged right now. He tried to ride the hate-Bush wave into the final inning and he's come up dry. The Republicans tortured him on his voting record and his penchant for indecisiveness and contradiction. Then, Bush came out and outlined an aggressive domestic agenda and reinforced his position on foreign affairs. In the face of all that, we have John Kerry, his purple hearts, his running mate who is the poster-boy for what is wrong with class-action law, and we have his wife that is more interested in talking about herself than her husband. The Wizard stands before you yelling loudly about his war record and telling you not to look behind that curtain over there, knowing that what's behind there is a scared little man trying to sneak his way into power.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 12:57 PM
Guys - The employment data can be found on the bureau of labor statistics... and the "job loss" data is another form of government base line data gathering. Without counting August's soon to be relesed data, the economy has gained 1,870,000 jobs since January, 2001.

So... Why do we hear about the loss of 1.1 million jobs ?

Simple... 3,000,000 people have entered the workforce since January 1, 2001... So unemployment has gone up by 1.1 million people...

So... even though 1.9 million more people are working... we lost jobs.

Gotta love how the government thinks...
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:02 PM
What makes you think that Bush will focus on reducing unnecessary spending, or is it just hoping? I haven't seen anything from him to make me think that he will, but if it is in fact the case that he will I would feel better about him being in there for another term.

Craigsub, as far as the US being worth so much more, I never looked at it that way. Then again, I haven't seen those numbers before that our net has grown so much. Where do those figures come from?

I would still think that we should be able to balance things and have that net continue to grow without growing the debt part along with it. I see trillions of dollars, a debt number which is too large for me to even comprehend (who among us is ever going to see near that kind of $), and I have to think that something's got to be done about it eventually. It's the people that make up that $25 trillion in worth, but the govt. that owes the 5 trillion (or whatever the numbers were) correct? They certainly aren't about to take the 10k per head(or whatever it would break down to) from the people to pay off all the debt, so it sounds like the govt. is still in debt without a way to pay that money back, even if the country's worth has gone up.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:13 PM
Zarak, There was an economist talking about this on the radio... Just in Real Estate, we have seen $13 trillion in growth... that, of course, includes the corporate world.


Posted By: ThunderRd Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:37 PM
I discovered by accident that you can left click to highlight an address then right click on the box and Google Search is an option. If it doesn't bring you directly there it sets up the link. The less typing the better for me.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:52 PM
TD- you have got to be kidding me with this zell miller crap. he is no more a democrat than you are.. that is just an angry, mean old man who is off his medication. his yelling and spitting and ranting just affirmed to me how desperately the republicans wanted and needed a scape-goat to open the can of worms on kerry. that guy was and is a complete tool. about as useful as a refrigerator in an igloo. give me a break.

did you bother to see his interview with chris matthews later on that night after his speech? this guy is a complete moron. his baffoon speech and dialect were even worse than george w(never thought that would be possible), and his views are sooooo dated. he even told chris matthews, that "i wish this was the old days where i could just take a switch to ya".. are you kidding me.. a grown man saying that to another grown man..

someone get this guy some valium and sit him down. he made himself and the state of georgia look bad.. very bad!!

bigjohn
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 01:53 PM
I'm glad the conventions are over and am anxious to see if these candidates can get beyond the attack ads. The vice presidential debates should be interesting, I can't imagine two men more different than Cheney an Edwards.

An issue that is receiving more statewide attention here is education. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program is not viewed very positively in this state by either the Republicans or Democrats. I'm faced with sending my oldest child to kindergarten this fall. We're pretty committed to the public school system, both my wife and I went to public schools which prepared us well for college and careers. Our neighborhood public elementary school is celebrating the fact that 60-70 percent of the students are now passing basic proficiency tests in reading and math. 60-70 percent passing doesn't instill much confidence in me, 30 to 40 percent are failing. Funding for the public schools is a huge issue-teachers are faced with buying basic supplies out of their own pocket. I'm now understanding why so many people in our area send their kids to private schools. Is this similar to the rest of the country? I don't feel like our local schools should be funded by the federal gov't, but our governor is slashing and capping budgets across the board. More parental involvement, financially I mean, seems to be the answer, but in our city we've got open enrollment in public schools meaning kids are bused in from all over the city. Income levels for about 40 percent of the kids in our school are at or below the poverty level-meaning those parents probably aren't going to contribute in any meaningful way. It's a tough issue with long term ramifications.

Glad you hung around Craig.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 02:21 PM
Education is a funny topic... We send our kids to a school which takes NO funding... no church affiliation, not $1 in government $$$ anywhere. We pay about $7000 per year per child... The last I looked, in public education, appx. $12,000 per student is spent... and we are seeing some amazing results in this private school... Vouchers for private school would work wonders...
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 02:43 PM
The cheapest private school close to us has a tuition of $17,000. The private schools here are academically rigorous and very successful. If need be we'll spend the money. Charter schools are popping up throughout our state, some successful, some not so great. Vouchers sound to me like the right answer, but in this state the idea of vouchers is like many other issues very polarizing. My wife and I have an admittedly idealistic view of public schools, feeling that if good people don't get involved, the schools won't get better. On the other hand, it bothers me to send my daughter, who at 5 already has some rudimentary reading and math skills, into a school where she may not get challenged academically as the teachers deal with issues like teaching English to a fraction of the class who need to learn English as a second language.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 02:48 PM
Public schools will never get better as long as the NEA is in control of the teachers... Parental involvement will likely get your child ostracized. We have a VERY close friend who is superintendent of schools in a fairly well off region here. He cannot tell a teacher anything. Period. A teacher in today's oublic schools answers to noone, especially "ignorant" parents... it is really sad... but true.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 03:43 PM
Zarak - It's wishful thinking. He is cutting taxes, yet proposing new programs. Therefore, unless he wants to get beaten up by the left for proposing more than we can affor, he might have to consider finally cutting other more frivalous spending....at least that's my hope.

BigJohn - Dude, ya gotta step back from the party line for a second and be objective. When you do so, you realize that Chris Matthew is a complete jacka$$. Zell was rev'd up based upon an ambush Matthews performed on an author resently. If you look up the text of that interview, Matthews was completely overly aggressive, disrespectful, and genuinely disgraceful as a journalist. He never let her finish her sentances, he took everything she said and distorted it or took it out of context.....he was a menace. She finally left the show during the break. She was originally on the show to discuss a completely different topic from her book, but was roped into talking about the swift-boat think simply because she was a conservative. Matthew's pinned her down as a representative of the President, which was wholely inaccurate. Matthews wanted to make a point for his boy Kerry and decided to lambast an innocent writer who had no relationship to the issue or any of the involved parties.

So, that brings us to Zell Miller. I ask, have you read his book? If you had, you might understand him better. He is a Democrat from the days before these extremist liberals took over the party. He is from the days of great moderate Democrats like JFK. He went to Washington to fill a post vacated by the death of the elected Senator. Once he got there, he came to understand what is going on in the Democratic party and who is running the show. His unwillingness to tow the party line and serve as the puppet of the unions and the special interest groups has forced him to the fringe of the party. His disgust with the situaiton in Washington led him to write his book, which pulls up the skirt of the Democratic party for all to see the dirty laundry. Because of that, the party has villified him and done whatever possible to discredit him and paint him as a loon.

It is with this understand that I suggest you think twice about writing him off like you have. Miller has the balls to stand on principals instead of falling in line with the rest of the crooks in Congress.

As far as the speech goes, someone had to tell the American public exactly what Kerry's true record was....not his damn war record. Miller didn't pussy-foot around the issue like everyone has been up until now. He has every right to be ticked off, since Kerry represents everything he dispises about what his party has become. He went from supporting a moderate Democrate of the likes of Clinton (key note 1982 I think) to watching his party be overrun with far-left socialists like Kerry and Kennedy and all the unions that they covet so much.

Finally, I want to go back to Chris Matthews. Zell did snap a little harder than he should, but I think that is was a miscommunication due to the loud crowd behind Matthews. Matthews asked a question about the anti-Republican rhetoric about starving our kids, etc and Zell thought that he was accusing Zell of using that language in reference to Kerry (worth finding speech online and re-listening to - makes more sense when you listen to it again). From that point on, Zell got pretty pissed off and went a little far. However, prior to that, he did something that needed to be done.....he basically told Matthews to shut up and let him answer the questions. Matthew's tried to bully Zell like he did that author and Zell took issue with that and put Matthew in his place. Matthews thinks his Crossfire (or whateve it's called) mentality is acceptable during civil political dialog and he's wrong.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 03:51 PM
For once, I think that I am going to keep quiet on an issue. I have degrees in Education and I used to teach high school here in Georgia. I also grew up in the Northeast. So, I have too much to say. Plus, I wouldn't want to tarnish my rep any further by exposing how jaded I am about my experiences.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 03:51 PM
Miller acted as the Republican shill to stir the pot without giving the Democrats a Republican to point the finger at. A very unscientific poll take here at our state showed that Millers performance turned off more undecided voters for the Bush cause than it gained. He preached to the choir. A very entertaining performance, but I'd rather get my entertainment from Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh and please don't equate him with JFK. Last time he spoke in Madison Square Garden he was endorsing Bill Clinton-flip flop?
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 04:17 PM
Why not equate Zell to JFK and others? If Democrats still believed in principles like JFK, Rosevelt and others, I'd vote that way in a heartbeat.

Put yourself in Zell's shoes, if your party was taken over by socialists and even communists, wouldn't you be pissed off too?

Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 04:25 PM
In reply to:

Matthews thinks his Crossfire (or whateve it's called) mentality is acceptable during civil political dialog and he's wrong



but i am sure you find it perfectly OK when o'reilly does it?? you call matthews a jacka$$, but i suppose you think o'reilly is a saint? they are the same guy, jusyt on different sides of the fence..

the interviewer isnt the issue, its the one responding(or lack there of) to the questions. miller made himself look like a complete idiot, and truly embarrassed himself. he put himself in the position to be the republican stool pigeon, and the convention loved every minute of it.. after all, they look at zell and say, "see there, inside every democrat, there is a republican just trying to get out".. i think overall it was a bad move by the republicans and rather tasteless in its intentions.

BTW- off topic a bit.. the TV reporter i like the most that i think is "fair and balanced" on both sides is joe scarborough. he is young and has a point of view that is more 'my generation'.. check him out sometime

bigjohn
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 04:30 PM
Socialists and communists!! I come from the home of the late Paul Wellstone, the most liberal voice in the Senate for the past 20 years. I hardly ever agreed with him but had enough dealings with him and his office to know that he was the most principled honorable politicians I have ever met. His detractors put him down as a socialist/communist as well. I know there has to be some balance within the parties and Miller is on the far right fringe of the Democratic party. I don't think he speaks for many in his party and certainly did them a disservice with his performance. He reminds me of our Senator Norm Coleman a liberal anti-war protesting Democrat for almost 30 years (only 6 years ago he campaigned for the despised liberal Wellstone) who switched parties when faced with a tough mayoral primary campaign in Saint Paul. Now he has his lips permanently chapped from kissing Bush's butt. I know political beliefs evolve through the years, but the major flip-flops smack more of politics than sincere beliefs.
Posted By: mhorgel Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 05:01 PM
In reply to:

I actually got a $300 check, and to be honest I think our country would have been better off if they'd kept the money.




So, did you send the check back?

Mark
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 05:20 PM
craigsub, you are obviously an intelligent and well informed person on a broad range of issues. The teacher union leadership and the education elites do indeed suck, but scrapping public schools rather than reforming them is a bad idea. The reforms should be allowed at the local level, free from the control of the politicians, and the changes should be made by the experts - the teachers.

Why do you feel that a teacher is unqualified to make decisions regarding what he teaches, or how he teaches it? I have two credentials, have taught for 11 years, passed a plethora of competency tests, spent roughly $40K on my education, participated in countless staff development activities and even now continue to go to school myself. But you would prefer that politicians, administrators controlled by local school boards, OR PARENTS! be in charge of making decisions for me in the classroom? Why did I spend so much time, effort, and money to become an expert in education? Did you tell your wife's doctor how to treat her allergic reaction the other night? Would you tell your attorney which cases to cite as precedents? Your tax advisor? etc...

I won't bore you guys with a dissertation of what's wrong with public schools, or why private schools have inherent advantages that frequently lead to greater success (it has nothing to do with administrative control), or how most administrators are failed teachers. Unless, of course, you really want to know.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 05:36 PM
Truthfully, I'm not a big fan of O'Reily's either. He does the same crap. Alan combs does this to a lesser degree....he isn't abusive, but he loves to interupt speakers when they start to make a point he doesn't like.

I much prefer people with the temperment of Sean Hannity. You may disagree with everything that he espouses, but he is never rude to you. He may crush you in your discussion/debate, but he is always cordial and respectful.

As far as Zell goes, I didn't compare him with JFK. What I did do is say that he comes from a time where the moderate stances of people like JFK were celebrated in the Democratic party and those with socialist or communist leanings were relegated to the fringe of the party. You say that Zell's views are antiquated and I believe you are right. This is the great tragedy of the Democratic party. They have allowed the zealots to gain control of the party, which has pulled it farther away from the moderate base.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 05:38 PM
"Republicans sold us out with a generation of trickle-down economics that blew the deficit sky-high, drove poverty through the roof, and squeezed the middle class like a lemon at a county fair. They gave themselves the goldmine, and they gave the rest of us the shaft."

- Zell Miller, 2/25/96

So when exactly did the socialist and communists take over the Democratic party? Appartently it must have happened in the middle of Clintons second term. Because as of 1996, Zell Miller was still "towing the party line".

Oh...look there's more...

In a 2001 speech, Miller called Kerry "one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend." He said, "John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington…He fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment." [Source: Zell Miller speech, 2001]


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 05:42 PM
HAHA... now thats a gem of a quote!!

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 05:48 PM
Wow, he must really, really love Bush then! Even more than the war-hero Kerry!
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 07:50 PM
Now all we need to do is float a rumor that Miller and Bush are secret lovers and Kerry will be a shoe-in!
Posted By: 2x6spds Baby Killers at It Again - 09/03/04 08:12 PM
Yes, perhaps we have forgotten the Palestinian slaughter of infants in the nursery of Kibbutz Ma'alot, but doesn't the murder of over a hundred school children by the Islamic Jihadists today remind us about the essential nature of these people?

Posted By: 2x6spds Who Is Marking 9/11 with Celebrations? - 09/03/04 08:13 PM

September 3, 2004 No.778

London Convention Will Celebrate 9/11



The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the extremist Islamic movement Al-Muhajiroun had announced a convention in London, titled "The Choice is in Your Hands: Either You're with the Muslims or with the Infidels," to mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The organization had planned a similar anniversary event a year ago, called "The Magnificent 19 [Suicide Attackers]," but had cancelled it at the last minute. The following is a summary of the report:(1)
Al-Muhajiroun leader Omar Bakri, a Syrian residing in London, told the paper by phone that the convention would feature Al-Qa'ida "surprises," with the screening of a never-before-shown video. He said that the convention will focus on "the anniversary of the division of the world into two great camps - the camp of faith and the camp of unbelief," and would take place September 11, 2004 from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Bakri added: "On this day, we will talk about the ramifications of these [9/11] operations for Afghanistan and Iraq... We want the world to remember this operation ... that lifted the head of the [Muslim] nation." Bakri called 9/11 "a cry of Jihad against unbelief and oppression," and said that the aim of remembering it is to "revive the commandment of Jihad among the youth of the [Muslim] nation."

Bakri said that the convention will also feature a lecture about the Islamic religious roots of "slaughtering the infidels," that is, beheading foreigners in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and that there will be films by Al-Qa'ida, the Tawhid and Jihad organization, and the Brigades of the Two Holy Places in the Arabian Peninsula, and that there will also be a film on the most recent operations in Chechnya. He added that one of the speeches, by Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, known to be Al-Qa'ida's military commander in Iraq, will be translated.

Another lecture, he said, would be dedicated to the memory of three Al-Qa'ida commanders: Abd Al-'Aziz Al-Muqren (Abu Hajer), killed in June 2004 by Saudi security forces; his predecessor Yousef Al-Ayyiri, killed in June 2003 in a clash with Saudi security forces, and Abu Hafs Al-Masri, a top Al-Qa'ida military officer, killed in the U.S. attack on Kandahar in late 2001.

According to Bakri, the anticipated criticism of Al-Muhajiroun for the organization's insistence on memorializing 9/11 will be "a simple sacrifice in comparison with what we must actually do - that is, support the Jihad led by bin Laden."

Attorney Anjam Choudry, secretary-general of Al-Muhajiroun in Britain, said, "A large hall has already been secured for the convention, but the announcement came only two days ago for fear that the British police would try to cancel it, as happened with the previous convention."

Endnote:
(1) Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 3, 2004.



Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 09:27 PM
I listen to George's speach last night and must admit it sounded pretty darn good. So that go me suspicious. I really liked his pledge to increase Pell Grant funding for college students, as I myself received a Pell Grant in my third year of college, and that grant is what allowed me to attend.

Here's what I found...these blurbs are from a simple search on "bush Pell Grant". Most of these blurbs are NOT in response to last nights speach. They're dated months ago.

Bush Freezes Federal College Scholarship, or Pell Grant
Just as college tuition is rising and the buying power of grants continues to erode, President Bush has frozen the maximum Pell Grant at $4,050 in his FY 2005 education budget. This is the 3rd year in a row that Bush has frozen or cut the maximum Pell Grant.

Despite Bush’s protests that restoring the buying power of the Pell Grant won’t stop rising college costs, he continues to ignore the tuition problem. Not only has he failed to address rising college tuition, but his budget makes college even more expensive by freezing or cutting student aid and taxing students.

Bush Breaks his Promise to Increase Maximum Pell Grant to $5,100
While campaigning in 2000, President Bush, pledged to make college more affordable and accessible by increasing the maximum Pell Grant for college freshman to $5,100.

Not only has President Bush broken his promise to increase the maximum Pell award to $5,100, but he’s actually frozen or cut the maximum Pell grant for the past three years.

Bush College Aid Update Would Force Students to Pay More for College
In 2003, the Bush Administration made revisions to the information used to determine financial aid eligibility that would have eliminated Pell Grants for 84,000 students, and reduced college aid to thousands more students. Fortunately, a Democratic amendment to the 2004 Education Appropriations bill reversed the Bush cuts, restoring Pell Grants and key college aid to students.

Leaves 99 percent of Pell Recipients Behind with ‘Expanded’ Pell Program
As part of his 21st Century Jobs initiative, President Bush announced an increase of up to $1,000 in the maximum grant for Pell recipients who take challenging high school coursework. What the President failed to mention is that he’s capped his plan so that less than 1 percent of all Pell recipients, and less than three-tenths of 1 percent all of all college students, would benefit.


Posted By: spiffnme Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 09:36 PM
I nearly laughed aloud when George personally thanked the leaders of his "coalition of the willing" last night. In particular Poland. Did he forget the very angry Polish presidents words just a few months ago?

ALEKSANDER KWASNIEWSKI (translated): They deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride.

Six countries – Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Spain, the Philippines, Norway, and Nicaragua – have already pulled their troops out of Iraq. Poland, the Netherlands, and New Zealand – are planning to withdraw shortly.

Posted By: spiffnme nice...even more... - 09/03/04 09:40 PM
Remember the letter from the US soldier that George read from last night. I guess the idea is that we're supposed to belive that it's just any letter from any soldier, right? Wrong. It was written by Joe Roche, a scholar at the National Center for Public Policy Research – a far right-wing organization. In fact it's on their website.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 09:45 PM
spiff,

You and I might be the only ones to enjoy this video, but that'll be worth it.

George Bush: Words speak louder than actions.

(courtesy of the Daily Show, of course)
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 09:51 PM
hmmm...this wouldn't really be a 'flip-flop', it's more of a misleading statement, no?

In a second term, Bush pledged to "double the number of people served by our principal job training program." That is a nice idea, but he has spent the last four years cutting funding for job training programs. His 2005 budget, for example, proposed to cut job training and vocational education by 10 percent – that's $656 million – from what Congress pledged to those programs in 2002.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 10:00 PM
Regardless of whether's he's an elephant or an ass, Zell Miller is a raving lunatic.

This page debunks his entire rant againt Kerry's defense voting record.

It's sad, really. I heard interviews with many republicans after Miller's speech. Most of them could be summed up as saying "Miller was just telling it like it is." Unforunately, Miller had fallen victim to the Republican party's own history-altering propaganda machine.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 10:27 PM
I detect a sudden sense of desperation in y'all's posts. Not liking the latest polls?

I remember Pell Grants being something like $1100 a semester back in the '80s. As a scholarship athlete I didn't qualify for one unfortunately - apparently my Dad's cushy job as a truckdriver put us in the "affluent" category.

Lots of the other guys qualified though. They bought fancy clothes, new scooters, big gold chains, partied at the high dollar night spots in Waikiki. Considering the modest pace of inflation since then, $5100 sure must buy a lot of bling-bling for today's needy folks.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 10:35 PM
In reply to:

I detect a sudden sense of desperation in y'all's posts. Not liking the latest polls?




Desperation? Hardly. It's just that I've been given a whole new load of ammo with last nights speach.

I remember when gas was $.070 a gallon too. I remember when a pair of Levi's was $15...that's a REALLY lame arguement.

I worked all day, went to school all night, and am still paying off my loans. I didn't have any "bling-bling". Besides...$4050, not the promised $5100 is only the maximum allowed - not all recipients get that much.

Why am I not surprised in the least by your response to a CLEAR distortion of Bush's record?


Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 10:48 PM
I think Kerry will lose. Again, I'm a lifelong democrat, and have yet to find a democrat who really likes Kerry. I've found many who hate Bush, but Kerry's actual support for him as a candidate for president is soft.
Posted By: dmn23 Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 11:05 PM
As much as it pains me to do so, I'm voting with the Dark Side this year. I cannot abide the large majority of this rootin', tootin' idealogue's policies, but Kerry hasn't shown me anything of substance.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 11:10 PM
If pointing out facts and disproving statements made by speakers at the RNC is a sign of desperation, then I suppose all your comments after the DNC were out of desperation as well?

If anything, we look desperate simply because we are outnumbered here. We don't have many people to slap our butts when we make a good play.

I don't keep track of polls. They are manipulative, if not manipulated.

I'll give you this: After hearing Bush's speech, I no longer dislike the man as intensely as I did before -- but I still disagree with him.

NO MORE YEARS!
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 11:14 PM
Look at it this way: Did Bush really have substance when he was elected? Not really, but many would say he rose to the occasion. The Presidency is defined not just by the man, but by whom he chooses to surround himself with.

I think Kerry et al will quickly fill the shoes Bush leaves/might leave in office, and then will likely trade them in for less slippery ones.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 11:15 PM
2x6, I definitely agree with you. Many people hate Bush, but you can probably count those who love Kerry on one hand.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 11:18 PM
Smile BigWill... The fact that the NEA makes life miserable for parents, administrators, and tax payers does not mean all teachers are bad. I would guess 80 % are wonderful... The problem is the 20 % are untouchable... and all it takes is one teacher like that to ruin a kid's academic career.

As a family, we are very involved on our kid's schools... and also support our public schools... buying every find raising project that comes by.

And... We still pay school taxes.

We also NEED more parental involvement... too many parents are quick to blame anyone but little Johnny...

What we don't need is more money... just smarter use of money.

Do me one small favor... don't confuse yourself with Union Thugs ... ... you are MUCH better than that, my friend.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 11:18 PM
In reply to:

Reasons to vote for Kerry without mentioning the "B" word.

1) The constitution is not meant to deny any group of people equal rights.
2) Stem Cell research should be funded.
3) If you don't believe that the US's role in the world is to topple any and all governments that we dislike.
4) If you want to keep Church and State separate.
5) Supreme court justice appointments.
6) If you believe in the U.N. and what it stands for.
7) If you are pro-choice.
8) If you believe in actively seeking and funding alternative fuel sources to help cut our dependancy on foreign oil, rather than simply drilling in our own national parks.
9) You want a President that will respect our allies.




OK Spiff.. Nice job. You are 1 in a million.

However, I can show the flip side on every one.

#1) According to your side, if you are between 1 second old and 9 months old (minus 20 minutes), you have NO rights. I'd get 20 years in jail for punching a gay guy in the mouth, but a "doctor" can suck an 8 month old's brains out with a shop vac with impunity.

2.) Agreed, but my side thinks that Michael Moore could have started one hell of a stem cell research foundation with all of that money he spent lying about Bush. Hmm... Instead of "Rock Against Bush", how about "Rock For Stem Cells"???

3.) We haven't taken out any countries because we dislike them. The ones we took out, we took out because we HAD to.

4.) The Constitution says "...there shall be no state sponsored religion", it does not say "seperation of church and state". My side believes that Judeo Christian values are the foundation of the state itself, and that those values are precisely WHY the US has become great. Destroy the foundation and the house falls.

5.) You're damn straight, skippy. The 9th Circus Court of Appeals in California is a prime example of why we've got to keep those liberal judges out. We agree on something !!!! (ok.. I snuck that one in - you weren't specific)

6.) I believe in the concept behind, and 75% of the stated goals of the U.N.. Unfortunately, the U.N. as it stands now is corrupt, inept, and morally flawed. You follow that current flock of losers. I'm not. Clean house, maybe I will...

7.) See #1. I am pro life. The choice comes before the sperm hits the egg. After that, you're talking murder disguised as medicine. If I'm wrong, people accidentally live. If you're wrong, people accidentally die. Exactly how sure ARE you? Who is cruel?

8.) I believe in getting oil wherever and whenever we can. I also believe that there are HUGE profits to be made in the area of alternative fuels. If I can make a buck in engineering them, producing them, or selling them, I'm all for it. It is stupid to stop producing the oil we need BEFORE we have invented, and have in full production, the alternative. Invent the wheel BEFORE building the cart, and don't sell your mule to buy the wood you need to build the cart.

9.) Our current President respects the ones that deserve our repect. France's position was wrong. They played nice with the terrorists, and their people got taken hostage the very first time they went against what the terrorists wanted them to do. Hmm... over 100 dead in a school in Russia this week, too. They also played nice with the terrorists... Our President was proven right again.

Oh... and I'm not a neo-con. I'm just a regular old generic conservative, thank you.

Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 09/03/04 11:40 PM
As much as you may like to believe otherwise, I'm not "on a side".

1) I DON'T believe that abortions later than the first trimester should be allowed.

2) Unless you know where all his money is gone, you're talking out your backside on this one. In fact, he even let his fans help decided which charity would get his tax refund last year. He does give his money to worthy causes.

3) We'll just disagree on this one. We did not HAVE TO take out Iraq.

4) Again, we simply disagree. I don't believe christion beliefs are the foundation of our nation. Great, you believe what you believe - don't make it law for everyone else. I don't believe in state money going into faith based organizations. Yes, they do a lot of good, but it's still federal money supporting a particular religion.

5) I think you know what I meant here.

6) So if it's broken, you just throw it away? Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has essentially become the only super power on earth. That shouldn't make us the worlds biggest bully as well. The WORLD oppossed the war in Iraq. The anti-war rallies around the world prior to the invasion were the largest mass protests in the history of the world. The only reason we went it alone is because we could. NOT a good reason.

7) I guess I like living on the edge. I'm also an athiest, so if I'm wrong on that one, I'm really screwed, aren't I?

8) I'm not suggesting stopping all domestic oil production. What I'm suggesting is MASSIVE incentives to get the ball rolling on alternatives. It's going to take some major bucks to get the oil and auto industries to get off their asses and come up with a true alternative. Right now it's too easy for them to sit back and roll in the money. The prize has to be worth the risk. A country free from foreign oil isn't a worthy prize to corporate america. The only thing corporate america jumps for is MONEY. Show them the money, and they'll show us a REAL car that runs without fossil fuel.

9) There's a difference between respecting your allies and agreeing with them.


Posted By: James_T Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/03/04 11:44 PM
RA RA RA.

Go peter, go peter, it's your birthday.

Seriously, nice work guys. I read this thread, but don't post. It makes my stomach hurt....

jr
Posted By: spiffnme Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:08 AM
Civilian Casualties
I'm sure this site will anger most of the right wingers around here. But how do you justify this?


Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:16 AM
Spiff... I took a quick run through ... I saw hundreds from small arms, mortar fire, car bombs... etc... I have quite enough familiarity with the US military to tell you most of those deaths were NOT caused by us.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:21 AM
I know it's a weak retort, but if we weren't there in the first place....
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:23 AM
Perhaps not directly. How many car bombs, and mortar fire were killing people before we invaded? The number is still astounding. Over 11,000. Who do you think the Iraqis blame?


Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:23 AM
You have a point... Then the 100,000 women (ok... mostly girls) that were being raped and many killed, could continue for a few more years...

Another question noone will answer... Who here would have sent his sister or daughter to Iraq under Hussein ?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:25 AM
I was going to edit my post above to include this:

So this begs the question: Has the situation we brought upon the Iraqi poeple resulted in more civilian deaths than Saddam Hussein would have caused in the same time period?
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:28 AM
You know that arguement simply doesn't fly. Unless you plan on police forcing the entire world that won't cut it with me. Why are we not in Sudan? There are LOT's of places where bad things are going on, are we going to globetrot around the world and "install" new government everywhere? Besides, that's NOT why we went. We went because we were told they had WMD, and were an iminent threat. Remember the "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" speach? Stop trying to switch the story. Liberating the Iraqi people WAS NOT why we went. That's what the story became after we got there, and found no WMD's.

To be terrible cold about it that's the story all the war supporters are trying to tell themselves so they don't feel so bad about the over 11,000 civilians dead. George and Co. got us shitting our pants over WMD's - THAT'S why we went. In George's speach last night, he suggested "Was I to trust the word of a madman?". No George, you weren't. You could have trusted the weapons inspectors that said they hadn't found anything.


Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:34 AM
Spiff... WMD's were a part of the equation. There was also a lot of talk about the crimes against humanity... Harboring terrorists, you name it. I do like your position though... If we cannot save ALL people, screw em... we won't save any.

By the way... another question you never answered... Which democrats were saying "no wmd's" before the Iraq war.

Hey Spiff... Why don't you do this one, too... When did President Bush say Iraq "was an imminent threat"?


Posted By: JaimeG Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:35 AM
Who here would have sent his sister or daughter to Iraq under Hussein ?
--------------------
I ‘ll choose Irak(under Saddam) over Saudi Arabia any day.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Body count - 09/04/04 12:35 AM
I found this on the "body count" website. It gives some info on how they came up with their totals. 7300+ is still a hell of a count.

This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:39 AM
That's the de rigeur ex post facto justification of the war. The ends justify the means, right? When the "end" happens, we'll have to see about that.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:39 AM
Well... I am not sure what to say... other than your daughter, as an infidel, would surely have spent time in a rape room in Iraq...
Great choice you are making.

Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: politics - 09/04/04 12:40 AM
Now THIS is funny. I lived in Georgia for a few years. Zell Miller was the only Democrat that I have ever voted for in my life. I didn't like the Republican candidate (Guy Millner, I think) because he did not appear trustworthy to me. Maybe someone from Georgia can remind me what his "problem" was?

Zell IS the Democrat of the 1950s and 60s. Democrats used to be for the common guy. Now days you need to be a victim of a cause that they support, or they don't want to talk to you.

Also, Georgia politics are just a little different than most other places. Straight shooting, plain talking, no nonsense politics ranging from center to right. The liberal philosophy doesn't have much cohesive representation down there.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:40 AM
In reply to:

By the way... another question you never answered... Which democrats were saying "no wmd's" before the Iraq war.



I'm not a Dem, so I don't particularly care. I was against the war from the start.

I'll work on your other challenge. As that it's 6pm Friday prior to a long weekend, and one in which I'm playing in a tennis tournament, I'll likely not get you the quote(s) untill early next week.

I'm heading out of here guys. Let's keep the dialog going.

- Craig (the other one)


Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:41 AM
The ironic part... NONE of you guys have answered ONE question... it is nothing more than your own, America is wrong... self loathing.


Posted By: ringmir Re: Just some more fact checking - 09/04/04 12:53 AM
Allright, I gotta chime in because this Pell grant post just seriously pisses me off. First of all, I got a Pell grant. Now, understand I went to University of Pennsylvania, not a cheap school by any means and I understand that completely. But grants like this made it possible for me to even *dream* of going there. Did I party my four years away and learn nothing? No, I busted my damn a$$ and graduated summa cum laude with two majors because I appreciated that my education was an opportunity I should grab ahold of. What the grants didn't cover I took out in loans myself, or I worked hard to win educational scholarships to help with. When I started life my mother was single with three kids, living in Brooklyn, working hard, and on welfare. (Because my Dad, who is going to vote for Bush not that it is at all relevant, was a complete wastoid and ran the family finances into the ground.) Did my mother twiddle her thumbs and take welfare money as long as she could? Not a chance, she worked damned hard, got the hell out of new york and made a life for herself, and for us three. She worked 10+ hours a day for the last 20 years, never took a vacation, and never bought nice anything for herself. When the letter came saying I was going to be awarded grant money, she was beaming from ear to ear for weeks and telling all her friends. So I don't mind that some of my money goes to helping underpriveleged kids through college.

Now then, since I'm out of school (and fielding a rather hefty set of loans, even considering I was lucky enough to get some grant money) I have a good job and can live a little more comfortably. Don't let yourself think that people who get those grants aren't grateful or that they all waste them of nightclubs. I understand that programs like this made it possible for me to get where I am. There are *far* more people wasting mommy and daddy's money partying at school than there are people wasting their grants.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 12:56 AM
We're not answering your questions because they're rhetorical. And I'm frankly becoming annoyed by your high-and-mighty stance here. I don't recall anyone personally attacking you -- why do you insist on labeling us (those who don't agree with you) with these platitudes?

This is a debate about ideas. Let's continue without resorting to the personal attack tactics of politicians.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 01:01 AM
I see... asking YOU a question is both rhetorical and "high and mighty" ... That is one thing I love about certain people on the left... tolerance ends when someone either disagrees, or... asks a simple question.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Body count - 09/04/04 01:02 AM
Civilian deaths increase due to the tactics our Arab friends use: firing at soldiers from crowds of civilians, using civilian homes for barracks/headquarters/munitions dumps, lobbing mortar rounds indiscriminately, setting up roadside bombs and mines, etc...

There has been some talk about the Chechen terrorists also having AlQaeda members in their midst, but regardless of that... What political movement is so important that you deliberately butcher hundreds of children? And where are the protestors from Chechnya that decry such tactics on their behalf?
I think you know full well who the good guys are in this one, but your hatred for Bush and desire to see him ousted are all that matter to you. I'm an atheist too, but I do not feel threatened anymore by those with religous beliefs - more power to them.

BTW, I wasn't really making any argument about Pell grants and inflation - I was just trying to be funny. But since you mention it, IMO there shouldn't be any Pell grants at all. Student loans, community colleges and subsidized state universities are more than adequate to ensure that anyone who wishes to attend college, and strives to make it happen, may do so. They may have to work some. Too many freakin' freebies everywhere.

I know parents of disabled children who are paid in excess of $4000 per month to care for their own kids, given special vehicles to transport them, other high-tech devices that costs thousands of dollars; and many of the families aren't even citizens of this country. My heart ain't bleeding anymore.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 01:06 AM
Spiff,

I express my condolences to the family of each an every innocent Iraqi citizen that has been killed during the removal of Sadaam. For better or for worse, the lives of those people were sacrificed for the greater good of the Iraqi people. They now have the opportunity to become whatever they want to be, not what one man tells them to be.

And yes, I'm pissed off about it. If Kerry hadn't voted against the GBU-1000 super duper laser kaleidoscope, GPS, self cleaning, self guided, turbocharged, new and improved, 5 kajillion dollar bomb that is accurate to 1/64" of an inch, and kills only the correct target, they wouldn't be dead now, would they?

See? It's STILL all Kerry's fault, and you keep blaming Bush!
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 01:08 AM
Excuse me, but did I not list 10 reasons to vote for Kerry without mentioning Bush? Yeah...I think I did.

Craigsub, why is it that you can deal with Hsu fanatics, SVS fanatics, even take personal threats and stay calm, but with nearly every post you've made in this thread, you sound like a very angry man. It's like two different people.


Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 01:09 AM
Michael... What makes something funny is when it is based in the truth. Noone here is blaming Senator Kerry for Iraq. It IS a fact that he voted for the war based on the same intel President Bush had.

I hope you also note I refer to him as Senator Kerry... not as "Bush" ... as has been done repeatedly by the left side here...


Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 01:15 AM
I usually call him George, GW, or even G. Dubya. Does the lack of using proper titles mean my opinions don't count? Your offended by being described as being on a "high horse" and then post something like that. Wow. I guess you don't even realize it.




Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 01:19 AM
My point was simple.. They ALL deserve the respect of the office held. I just happen to be consistent on this belief. If you go through al this, you will see I am defending a man who was pur into a VERY difficult position.

By the left, he has been accused of...

1. Planning 911 himself.
2. Not preventing 911.
3. Taking away our freedoms when he tries to keep a repeat of 911 from happening.
4. And then there are the websites.. "Whyihatebush.com" "killthepresident.com"

If you want to call ME names, fine. I guess more tolerance from the left...
Posted By: ringmir Re: Body count - 09/04/04 01:21 AM
Will, it's not a matter of going to a community college. Sure I could go to some college if I wanted, but the opportuniy to go to a highly respected college where I will get a degree that actually means something in a highly competitve industry is a completely different story. There are people in this country who are extremely bright and intellectually deserving of a quality higher education. A lot of those kids are not in a position to ever get it without some aid. The government needs to find those kids and help them through school. A well educated population is critical in the continued success of this nation in the world. It is at least as important as a strong military and a tough stance of terrorism.

Do you want North Korea to nuke you? Do you want a programmer who went to Chester County Community College working on the software that will run on the radars and interceptors trying to keep you safe? Or would you rather that guy majored in Computer Science and Mathematics at Penn, and graduated at the top of his class?

Do any of you have a relative with a pacemaker? You know those things are programmed right? I doubt you want that software to crash. Or what about the back-end trading software used on wall street? How about the encryption technologies used by our military? I could go on for a while...and this is just one industry out of many with similarly critical systems.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 01:38 AM
I totally agree. He's been put into a VERY difficult position. I don't think he's handled it very well, and hope he doesn't get to stay in office for another four years. I never said he had it easy.

As far as respecting the office. I respect people, not titles. As far as I'm concerned, George has not earned my respect. He doesn't respect me, why should I respect him?


Posted By: craigsub Re: Body count - 09/04/04 01:41 AM
Ringmir... You make some pretty good points... I would also like to see "merit grants" along those lines... Based on grades, as that is the objective standard...

You get aid for a year... screw up, and you pay... get a 3.5 (or something like that) ... next year is free...

That way the REALLY smart AND ambitious ones are keeping the nukes away..

Although... if the Chester Community College kid plays enough video games, he may STILL qualify...
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 01:47 AM
Spiff... He has never met you. How can he not respect you ? As far as his not handling it well... He has. We have not been attacked again, and the three countries that would not honor their vote from November, 2002 are paying dearly for their cowardice.




Posted By: ringmir Re: Body count - 09/04/04 01:51 AM
I would love to see merit grants. There are some out there but a lot of them are privately funded. All I'm trying to say is that money spent on higher education is money well spent. Sure some of it will get wasted, some of every large buget item the government holds gets wasted. But a lot of it will go to good use, and the majority of the recipients will appreciate it immensely.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Body count - 09/04/04 01:56 AM
Ringmir, The other problem, (of course) is the government is usually pretty bad at judging "merit" ... which is why private funding is usually the source.

That being said, I would prefer to see money potentially wasted on a student than surely thrown away on the majority of welfare programs (corporate AND personal) ...
Posted By: BigWill Re: Body count - 09/04/04 03:46 AM
Ringmir, should I infer from your post above that you feel private universities provide a "better" education than schools like UCLA or Berkeley?
I'll take the real world gains made by those UC schools to the old world cronyism of the Ivy League anyday. And despite rhetoric to the contrary these excellent schools are extremely affordable by comparison (if you can get in).
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: OT: politics - 09/04/04 04:11 AM
Another more or less Democrat chiming in here. Good discussion for the most part. Must be our common love of good sound and Axiom speakers.

I am reading to learn - it is an interesting way to hear both sides. I do have a few bits of input.

"1) I DON'T believe that abortions later than the first trimester should be allowed."

I think it is hard to say when life begins for me - until about 2 months - then it is definitely a person.

"3) We'll just disagree on this one. We did not HAVE TO take out Iraq."

Agreed - why not "take out" Sudan, etc.?

"7) I guess I like living on the edge. I'm also an athiest, so if I'm wrong on that one, I'm really screwed, aren't I?"

Maybe more to the point - it doesn't seem right to forbid someone to have the choice when it is pretty unclear (the crux of the issue) when life actually begins. If the right really wants to make abortions stop - why don't they really push their own folks to provide good alternatives? They (used to be "we") are much more inclined to try to pass a law that is not going to get passed for years to come than to start up real alternatives. (Granted even Jerry Falwell has started places for "unwed mothers" but the options like this are still few and make the pro-life movement seem hypocritical).
Posted By: ringmir Re: Body count - 09/04/04 04:21 AM
UCLA and Berkeley are outstanding schools, as are many other state schools. But it's almost never an option for a low income family to send their child to school across the country for school. Scrounging up money for a winter vacation plane ticket may be impossible for some of these students. A few friends of mine in school stayed with me over fall and spring breaks because they lived far away and couldn't afford to go home. And what about the kids who work part time through school to help pay the bills back home? Or need to save every penny they can on room and board by living at home while in school?

There are programs like "work study" that would help too (without being a "freebie"), the problem is that the government caps the wage a work study student can earn rather than paying up to a fixed amount regardless of the student's wage. So the government will give say, 3k in a work study grant, which then counts against other potential grants, but the student never earns the work study money because they can get a different job that pays better. The cap isn't very high either, when I was in school it was around $8 / hour, only a fraction of which the government pays anyway. Granted this makes the student an attractive worker because they cost the school less money, but then these kids get funnelled into the lower paying jobs at the school. And what's worse, when these kids with work study jobs earn as much as their work study grant permits the government to subsidise, they lose their job because the university figures they should go find another work study kid. I never used my work study grants because I got a job as a TA that paid too much, but damned if it didn't count against my eligability for *all* grant money, even non-federal.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 07:10 AM
In reply to:

By the left, he has been accused of...

1. Planning 911 himself.
2. Not preventing 911.
3. Taking away our freedoms when he tries to keep a repeat of 911 from happening.
4. And then there are the websites.. "Whyihatebush.com" "killthepresident.com"

If you want to call ME names, fine. I guess more tolerance from the left...


The left this, the left that. Lumping people who happen to hold beliefs that are to left of yours with the conspiracy theorists who believe Bush planned 911 is completely ridiculous! Do you actually think we believe that crap?

Calling people who disagree with President Bush's policies "self-loathing Americans" is also ridiculous. I don't need to support the president to know I live in amazing country. I don't need to agree with the actions of our government to feel good about myself. Don't sell youself short and rely on that crutch of an argument.

And when I said your questions were rhetorical, I simply meant that it's plainly obvious you already know the answers to them. Unless I'm in a classroom, I don't normally respond to individuals who ask questions to which they already know the answers.

So, who's calling you names?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 07:18 AM
In reply to:

As far as his not handling it well... He has. We have not been attacked again.


Since I started keeping a clove of garlic in my back pocket I haven't seen any vampires.

The lack of an attack on our homeland is not proof that we are safer. The country felt pretty safe on 9/10/01, didn't it?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Body count - 09/04/04 07:22 AM
In reply to:

...should I infer from your post above that you feel private universities provide a "better" education than schools like UCLA or Berkeley?


Hey, isn't Berkeley where all the Marxist professors congregate? (sorry, I'm full of zingers tonight...)

I'm a UC Berkeley grad and got a couple Federal grants that helped me through, but I mostly depended on work-study and loans cover the majority of my expenses.

Oh, BTW, for out of state individuals, Berkeley and UCLA are about as expensive a s private school.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Body count - 09/04/04 01:32 PM
PM - THis IS a debate of the "lefts's" argument vs. the "right's" ... and the left in this country has made all the accusations I listed.

The other half of the rhetorical question is that the person being asked also knows the answer. So, yes, YOU also know that every Democrat also supported the policy in Iraq, believed in the amount of WMD's available... witnessed some of the rape rooms (I got to see a British lady from the House of Commonds who had visisted Iraq to oppose the war, SHE was a strong proponent after she was taken through a rape room, and had seen what had occured) ... and the many terrorist camps they had operating in Iraq...

As far as you vampire analogy, in order for it to "hold water" you must have actually been attacked by a vampire... nice! ...
Posted By: craigsub Re: Body count - 09/04/04 01:55 PM
I have been reading up some on the situation in the Sudan. Arab militia has been attacking what looks like defenseless Black Africans (I think they ARE pretty much defenseless, but used looks lke to be safe). These "militia" (I call them terrorists) have killed upwards of 30,000 people, and 1.2 million people are homeless... driven from their villages by the terrorists... these terrorists are well armed, while the Black Africans are not. Thus, we have a pretty nasty bloodbath occuring.

Is this a decent summary ?
Posted By: littleb Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 03:10 PM
I hate to say it, since I don't want to upset you any more than you probably are, but I can't really help myself. . . you forgot bribing the Supreme Court to put the final touches on a stolen election which was brought about with the aid of Katherine Harris and Governor brother Jeb Bush of Florida. Now remember when you read this, that it is a pathetic attempt at political humour. Smile, please.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Body count - 09/04/04 03:19 PM
There's no shortage of Marxists at UCLA, either.

I just read in todays paper that the UC student's education (California residents and illegal immigrants apparently, but not folks from any other US state) costs the gov't $8500 a year. What is tuition now ? about $2k? Pretty damn good deal IMO, but I suppose the gov't should go ahead and pay for it all, plus books, meals, lodging, plane tickets home, cash for beer and clubbing, free bicycles, what else am I missing? Oh yeah, protest supplies - it ain't cheap making all those "Bush is a terrorist" posters. And they need a ration of flags for flag burning demonstrations - might as well have the taxpayers buy those too.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/04/04 03:27 PM
Littleb - That was pretty funny.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Body count - 09/04/04 03:34 PM
BigWill... That was doggone funny, too...
Posted By: BigWill Re: Body count - 09/04/04 07:08 PM
There were two letters in the paper today that blew me away here's the first:

Salute service and the flag

I am a World War II veteran (1943-49). I served in Europe and fought through France and Germany, and ended up in Austria in 1945. I am 81 years old, on Social Security and living with my daughter because I can't work. And I would like to have a flag, but I have to buy one sometimes at a yard sale or swap meet.

This is the flag that I love; it stands for a lot of broken hearts of mothers, sisters, brothers, friends, wives, fathers and all. I am very proud of my country. When I see my flag I get goose bumps, I shed a tear.

This country doesn't owe me anything because I fought for it. I would gladly do it again if I had to.

RUBEN PETERS

Riverside


and the second:

The new citizen-patriots

Two-hundred and twenty-odd years ago a small group of poorly armed citizen-patriots stood behind trees and attacked the organized regiments of Redcoats whom they thought were illegal occupiers of their country. Today we call these fellows heroes and our Constitution contains a Second Amendment stating "A well organized Militia, being necessary ... the right to bear arms shall not be abridged."

Today we are the invaders-occupiers. We call the citizen-patriots in Iraq "insurgents" or "terrorists." We demand that all militias there be disarmed or destroyed, we bomb and advance artillery and tanks through neighborhoods, and we state, despite agreements with local leaders and the "interim government," that "Our troops will go in and out as always" (The P-E, Aug.30).

This is not al-Qaida. These are patriots who attack us only when we invade their territory. We were probably wrong to invade, and we are definitely wrong to occupy this nation.

ALAN WILLIAMS

Riverside

Wow! How perspective can vary, huh?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Body count - 09/04/04 08:07 PM
Anyone want to wager a pair of M-80's on this ? My money is on Mr. William's being a BIG proponent of gun control here... As for comparing these terrorists to George Washington, it is as stupid a notion as I have ever heard.



Posted By: BigWill Re: Body count - 09/04/04 09:20 PM
We have some wackos out here.

OTOH, the old timer's letter made me tear up both times I read it.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Body count - 09/04/04 09:25 PM
BigWill, I hear you. The gentleman we bought our first dealership from fought in WWII, worked in the FBI for 10 years, then for Ford Motor, before buying the dealership in 1964... His views, and dedication to freedom... are very heart warming.
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/05/04 01:08 AM
"The lack of an attack on our homeland is not proof that we are safer. The country felt pretty safe on 9/10/01, didn't it?"

True but if we were attacked again it would be blamed on Bush. He has done some things well (maybe too well) and some things have not been taken care of. Just like Clinton.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/05/04 03:05 AM
Gentlemen... Take a HARD look at Russia.. They thought we were on the wrong side of fighting terror... there was temporary profit in their position... now there are 100's dead ... noone likes war. ever. But we either fight... or die.
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/05/04 03:17 AM
Craigsub,

I could be wrong and I certainly am somewhat ignorant still - but I thought Russia has been coming down HARD on "terrorists" for quite a while in Chechnya.

(I do believe that the Chechnyan militants - like Al Queda - are truly terrorists. But that does not mean their views are all wrong. Just some of them - to a terrible extent.)

Again, correct me if I am wrong.
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/05/04 03:20 AM
And Israel - how far have they gotten by coming down very hard on the Palestinans?

Not that we should blithely go into these encounters with no guns and a purely pacifist stance - but some discretion and attention to the other sides concerns is necessary.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/05/04 03:31 AM
DK ... Yes, The Russians whacked Chechnya hard... they attacked without warning against a people , the Russians were wrong there, and acted as terrorists themselves.... they just learned a lesson on REAL terrorists... those who want to destroy anyone who disagrees with them... not co-exist.

Putin may finally "get" it...
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/05/04 03:39 AM
Some people think George W is a terrorist. I think they have some points but certianly there are differences. But, still - "shock and awe" was designed to strike terror in the hearts of the Iraqi soldiers - and for what purpose? Many of us believe it is simply for oil (i.e. continued world domination).

Again, just asking questions. I don't know enough to state much definitively - except that M3s are more accurate than Paradigm Titans.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/05/04 04:26 AM
Sometimes one has to look at results... "shock and awe" did precisely that. Had We wanted to, Iraq could be a parking lot today. Some may see that as arrogance, but it IS true. As for world domination in oil... If that was our goal, you would know it. Kuwait could be a territory, just as Guam is... we liberated, held out the hand of friendship, and hoped it was accepted.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/05/04 04:40 AM
Sorry, Donald, but what the Chechins want is a separate Islamic Fundamentalist state. They've blown up apartment buildings in Moscow, brought down airliners and now have killed about 200 children.

The French, who have done everything possible to accommodate their Islamic guests drew the line at headscarves in public schools. They also outlawed wearing crosses outside students' clothing and Jews from wearing yarmulkas. Interesting that neither Christians nor Jews took any Frenchmen hostage and threatened to behead them. You are aware of the 2 French journalists being held in Iraq.

Why would you think the Israelis have come down "hard" on the Palestinians? There are 1 million Palestinian Israeli citizens, fully franchised, full legal protection. What happens if a Jewish person wanders into a Palestinian town? Killed. How about the fate of the ancient and once populous Jewish communities of Damascus and Baghdad? The Copts of Egypt are appealing to the world to protect them from the Islamic fundamentalists. The Christians of Iraq are fleeing the Sunis and Shias to the Kurdish north.

How can you equate the acts of the Jihadists who strap explosive vests to their children and celebrate blowing up people in Pizza parlors, or busses, or check points, with Israeli police action to track down and kill the leaders who dispatch these murderers?

Come down hard? You mean like when the Iraqis hanged 12 Jews in central Baghdad from lamposts in 1969 precipitating the exodus of the Jewish community? That kind of hard? Maybe you mean the battle of Jenin when the PLA armed by the Israelis as part of the Oslo accords fought the Israeli army which entered the town to find those responsible for a suicide bombing which killed 10 people and then spread the great lie of an Israeli massacre?

Yes, the French should certainly give in to the Jihadists. It's clear that no dispute is too small to justify murder, so give in! Same for the Israelis - they should give in to the Jihadists, permit millions of Muslims to move into Israel and destroy Israel. Same for the Russians. Those fools, thinking they can keep a pluralistic society together when Jihadists want a Sharia state in Chechnya. Every non Muslim would have to leave or suffer the same fate as the 200 infants and children in Besla.

Yes, I suppose you're right - we should just give in to the Islamo-fascists Jihadists.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/05/04 04:54 AM
2x6 ... You have courage. In 1942, a lot of Americans who, before that, would have taunted each other also understood there was a threat that wanted us destroyed...

History has a way of repeating... I just hope that, in ten years, we are debating a flat tax... and not agreeing that this threat to kill every American by Muslim extremist terrorists must be stopped.

Iraq, under Hussein, was part of that threat... as is Iran still.

In 1941, a poll of Americans believed (by a 2 to 1 margin) that the Japanese meant us no harm...
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/05/04 02:00 PM
Thanks for the response - I will need to look at some things before responding intelligently. In the mean time I will respond half intelligently and hope you all can put up with it.

This is what I hoped would happen - getting exposed to some of the arguments I have not heard (I attend a peace church and work with all democrats who are to the left of Kerry for the most part) so I can consider them.

So, our purpose was to liberate the Iraqis? Or to deal with the imminent threat (or whatever word was used - big and present danger)? I have a hard time believing that because there was no evidence on the ground and no willingness to wait for proof, and I thought no reason not to wait - we were already in there inspecting most everything. (Again - just my take on it based on little research-trying to promote discussion not fierce argument). I am not trying to defend Kerry in this statement.

What the Israelis did in Jenin seemed to be roundly condemned by almost every country as way over the top. I would take advantage of every military defense I could too if I was in charge of Israel - but why keep settling in the palestinian territory and stoking the fires of terrorism? Jewish fundamentalism, from what I have heard and read. "God gave this land to us."

I am not advocating giving in to all terrorist demands - but some sensitivity can help you avoid some problems. You are right though, with certain Muslim fundamentalists the problems would be there anyway. Just not as bad I think.

I don't see the inherent problem with giving the chechnyans a separate Muslim state. Probably due to my own ignorance again. Sure - that might not turn them into peaceful neighbors, but some accomodation makes international relations work better. Some accomodation does not.

Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/05/04 02:41 PM
Donald, It is also very easy (note, I am not saying this about any one person) to say "what about?" then fill in the blanks... For example, "what about the Sudan?" ... and use that to discredit the efforts in Iraq.

I hope everyone agrees that the "Arab Militia" in the Sudan is nothing more than government backed terrorists. These guys were recently sold new weapons to use against the Black African population. These weapons include Attack Helicopters and Fighter Jets. The source ? The Russians.

Twelve Mig-29's are now in possession of these terrorists... Thanks to Pres. Putin.

And the thanks he gets ? Hundreds of people (including chilren) dead in a Russian school, killed by terrorists. Mr. Putin will be taking a MUCH different view of terror now... And I am sure President Bush will welcome President Putin with open arms...

And we ARE working with those in Africa to try to solve the problem, though it would have been easier without the addition of Migs and Hind Helicopters (watch Rambo III ... THOSE gunships against civilians)...

As for what President Bush (and 47 other countries with us) said ; "Do we wait until there IS an imminent threat?" ... And as far as finding WMD's, we did wait for 4 months after the final resolution from the UN (which again gave Iraq 30 days) to start the war. Even if Senator Kerry, heck, even if Ralph Nader was currently president, and some right wing guy was pounding on President Nader for not finding vast stockpiles of WMD's, I would point out that hiding (like... under 50 feet of sand) the WMD's would be easy.

We also DID find a lot of evidence, including a 155 mm shell, of chemical weapons.

President Bush was quite clear in his words, On March 1, 2003, Iraq could not "hit us" directly. But he was working on it. Should we have waited until he HAD missiles that could reach, say, England ? Or the US ?

In 1999, four years before the Iraq war, the United Nations reported that Iraq could produce 25,000 liters of Anthrax. It was then incumbent upon Iraq to prove they were destroyed, not for us to continue to prove the existence. A cubic meter holds 1000 liters. Enough Anthrax to wipe out hundreds of millions of people would fit into 3 meter, or 10 foot cube. With four months, how hard would it be to hide that in an area the size of California?

There was no doubt that Iraq under Hussein control would someday have WMD's and delivery systems that could hit first Europe, then the US and Canada.

And Hussein control also means his sons... they were at least as twisted as "Dad" ... nice family business, eh ?

Remember the flood of Anthrax laced letters... in 2002 and early 2003 ? They are no longer occuring. Perhaps that is coincidence...

But back to seeking evidence... It was Hussein's job to prove the WMD's were destroyed. It was not our job to prove they were there. THAT was the UN's position in every resolution passed.

The stated goals in Iraq were:

1. To ensure no WMD's could ever be used by Hussein again.
2. To eliminate the terrorist training camps located there.
3. Freeing the Iraqi people was a plus, and a good thing to do, yes.

This war against terror was also predicted, By President Bush, to last ten years or more. Iraq was just another step along the way.

I also love my church. We send food, clothing, and prayers to the people of Iraq. And the Sudan, Afganistan... and other areas of the world. I hope your faith will allow you to understand there is evil in the world, and sometimes we have to fight to stop it.



Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/05/04 03:51 PM
I have been reading about the Russian situation, and President Putin's response to date. He is so far showing remarkable courage, and a determination to not let this happen again.


Posted By: BigWill Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/05/04 05:58 PM
The Chechen terrorists seem to have a political goal that may or may not be noble, but their tactics clearly indicate that they are terrorists and not patriots, freedom fighters, or whatever. Killing all those kids, the civilians on the airliners, etc... is just the wrong way to go about achieving any goal.
The Israelis have shown many times over that they would like to live in peace with their Arab neighbors, but that doesn't seem to true of the Arabs. The hatred and sub-human loathing of the Jews by the Arabs is unfathomable to me and will always be an insurmountable obstacle to any peaceful resolution. I think it is a waste of time for the Israelis to negotiate with such enemies. They can put up that wall, defend themselves and launch retaliatory attacks forever - or get the hell out of there - but those seem to be the only options.
Personally, I don't see the allure of living in the Middle East, but whatever... Maybe the Israelis should all pack up and move to Baja, build replicas of the holy sites, and turn it into a beautiful country. Mexico ain't doing much with all that prime real estate.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 02:04 AM
"I have a hard time believing that because there was no evidence on the ground and no willingness to wait for proof, and I thought no reason not to wait - we were already in there inspecting most everything."

Donald - I'm going to be brief, since Craig addressed your post in length. I just wanted to request that you do some research into the 10 year period during which UNSCUM was supposed to be doing it's inspections. If you look at all of the UN resolutions during that time, they were consistently issuing resolution after resolution demanding that Hussein comply with their resolutions and provide unfettered access to all sites civilian/industrial/military/presidential. It's when you look back at the details that you find the root of the problem. Hussein was completely controlling where and when UNSCUM was allowed to search. When he wasn't doing this, he was periodically kicking them out of the country. So, the reality is that the UN inspectors were being lead back and forth across Iraq looking only at what Hussein would allow them to view.

Now, once you come to understand this, you have to then reexamine the fact that the UN clearly determined that Iraq had WMDs in many forms at the end of the first gulf war. Now, it's 10 years later and everyone is saying that there are no WMDs. For this to be true, either of two things would have had to happened:

1. Hussein destoyed them
2. Hussein hid them

Which one seems more logical? If he destroyed them, would he not have provided proof to the UN to avoid the second war? That's all he would have needed to do to get the UN off his back. Therefore, if you rule out the first option, what's left is that they are hidden somewhere, either somewhere in the sand or in a neighboring country like Syria.

The problem with everyone is that they get selective memory about the fact that there was no doubt that Hussein had them. Hell, he used them on the kurds. No one really wants to dig into the above argument because it would force them to agree with us evil conservative in our assessment that they are simply hidden somewhere.

Now...maybe that wasn't so brief. Then again, it was shorter than some of my other posts.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 02:07 AM
In reply to:

Sometimes one has to look at results... "shock and awe" did precisely that. Had We wanted to, Iraq could be a parking lot today. Some may see that as arrogance, but it IS true. As for world domination in oil... If that was our goal, you would know it. Kuwait could be a territory, just as Guam is... we liberated, held out the hand of friendship, and hoped it was accepted.




All I can say is wow. I think you've said enough for me.


Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 02:23 AM
Turbodog, Bigwill, Craigsub - Thanks for all the responses.

I have been thinking that I have been a bit out of line and selfindulgent. My purpose was to get information by entering the argument - but I think I am arguing too much instead of asking questions.

Honestly, I think going into Iraq was a BIG mistake and I have a hard time seeing why I should vote for Bush (this is a confession not an argument - I am offering no reasons here). But, if I am going to argue I need to know more.

So, anyway I will try to post my thoughts in the form of questions in the future. I don't want to be antagonistic, and I don't want to pontificate with my small collection of information.

I graduated from Jerry Falwell's college (now University) so I pretty well understand and empathize with the feelings behind conservative viewpoints. I think the truth is usually in the middle somewhere - so I need to hear what you guys have to say to feel like I am getting to a good understanding of our world and politics.

Anyway - more later.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 02:24 AM
Spiff... I said precisely nothing for you. I really love guys like you who love to take one small paragraph and try to make your case on it. So... let us examine this one paragraph.

1. Yes, We COULD have made Iraq into a parking lot. We did not. Instead, we are trying to bring a real democracy and self rule to the long suffering people there. Coalition forces have gone out of their way to avoid casualities. Britain ALSO could have made Iraq into nothing, and also showed restraint. We may not be perfect, but we are a good people. The "Shock and Awe" was intended to end the war quickly by making the Iraqi Army flee rather than fight to the death. There were a LOT of people predicting 500,000 Iraqi and 50,000 Coalition deaths ... Shock and Awe prevented that.

2. We are NOT controlling any oil in the mid-east.

3. And with Kuwait, after we liberated the country, we DID offer friendship. And for the most part, it wass accepted.

And to be clear, YOUR response was not a part of any form of polite dialogue....

Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 02:37 AM
Donald, Your posts have been well thought out. Having different viewpoints is a good thing...

As far as the war being a mistake... picture 5 years down the road, Hussein in power, and both Iraq and Iran with nukes... Everything we know is gone... Hussein killed millions of his own people... and power was all he cared about.

I fear war and feel for those killed immensely... and yes, I also understand anyone wanting to talk about the reasons why we are there...


Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 01:20 PM
Donald - Don't worry about it. This thread is just a long roundtable (long....round...don't know if that works) discussion. All views are welcome, as they enrich the overall dialog. Until recently, this has been a very civil political dialog....surprisingly. Therefore, please feel free to ask questions and/or make assertions. Just be prepared to back up the latter or you'll get torn up.

Gentlemen - Let's try to keep this thing going with a hint of civility. Otherwise, we'll have to put you two into time-out. Seriously, don't let this get personal. We are just talking politics here....we're all Axiom family here to some degree.....We're all just a bunch of extremist bible-beating selfish conservatives and bed-wetting socialist victimized liberals.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 02:15 PM
TD -- I tend to do things like review things I have said... just to make sure I am not taking it personally. I have been called "high and mighty" and "rhetorical" here... and have not called anyone names.

I DO state what I either think or know... (yes, there is some of both here) ... I have also not attacked Sen. Kerry, I have defended our President against false claims.




Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 02:21 PM
TD - Here is a specific. It was claimed earlier that job training was cut by $656 million dollars this year. Directly from the Department of Labor's own website, here are the job training figures:

2003 - $5.134 billion dollars.
2004 - $5.749 billion dollars.

Would someone PLEASE show how that is a cut ?
Posted By: bridgman Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 02:38 PM
>>Would someone PLEASE show how that is a cut ?

Well sure. They wanted $1280 million increase, they only got $615 million increase, so that must be a $656 million cut, right ?

It's even worse up here in Canada. Seems like all the political parties aim their announcements at the "easily confused" portion of the electorate. Problem is that the "easily confused" demographic seems to be growing every year and now makes up the majority of the voting population.

Thirty years ago politicians needed to be a bit clever when they offered to give "something for nothing", with tricks like deficit financing in peacetime and "selling off assets to balance the budget". Now they just lie to our faces and get away with it. Maybe we need to reduce electoral terms to match our ever-decreasing attention spans. We could start with a 3 month term -- Bush would have been tossed out and then voted back in by now
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 02:47 PM
That was another funny one. Bridgman, I spend enough time in Canada to really get an appreciation for what you go through up there. When people in Canada find out it is possible to get bypass surgery within 24 hours, they are just amazed.

I can also say no culture has EVER mastered self depracating humor as well as Canada...
Posted By: BigWill Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 05:03 PM
"It's even worse up here in Canada. Seems like all the political parties aim their announcements at the "easily confused" portion of the electorate. Problem is that the "easily confused" demographic seems to be growing every year and now makes up the majority of the voting population."

That was funny! Same thing down here.

Seriously though, how about longer terms in office? Fewer election pressures might equate to better policy - less politicization, less of a focus on PR value, politicians less geared toward pleasing special interest groups, etc... Maybe 6-8 year terms for the president?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/06/04 05:07 PM
BigWill... A nice idea... ALL we need to do is get 67 senators to agree, then get 38 states to approve, and we are THERE ! ...

OK... it COULD take a while..
Posted By: littleb Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 07:41 PM
You're absolutely certain the US government is NOT controlling any oil supplies in the Middle East. I'm suspicious of that statement. I don't think the American people are going to know this to be a fact or not for many years into the future.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 07:46 PM
Ok...You have a point. How does one prove that the government does NOT control oil supplies.

I could try sarcasm... "I also don't know for SURE that George W. Bush and John F Kerry are not aliens. Afterall, I cannot PROVE it" ...

Or... we could go for common sense... In order for the government to be in control of middle east oil, you would have to believe that the republicans and democrats are in one heck of a conspiracy...
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 07:49 PM
In reply to:

You're absolutely certain the US government is NOT controlling any oil supplies in the Middle East. I'm suspicious of that statement. I don't think the American people are going to know this to be a fact or not for many years into the future.




You're suspicious and I'm curious. What do you mean by your innuendo that the US government controls some oil supplies in the Middle East? Do you think the US is pumping Iraqi oil, stealing it? Do you think the US government is pumping Saudi oil, Q'tar's oil? Dubai's oil? Whose oil do you think the US is controlling, how is the US doing this and why do you believe it?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 09:44 PM
Hmmmmmm... Must have been a rhetorical question...
Posted By: BigWill Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 11:04 PM
If the war has been "all about oil", they shouldn't have bothered - gas prices have gone up like 60-70%.

I'm bothered by the media coverage of the Russian kids getting slaughtered. They're spending a lot of time focussing on the failings and/or deceptions of the Russian gov't. Shouldn't the point be how terrible the people are that took all those kids hostage? Shouldn't the Russian public's anger be directed at the terrorists?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 11:08 PM
BigWill... You are absolutely right. Children are slaughtered, and the perpetrators are called "militants" ... it is nothing short of disgusting.

These terrorists are the lowest form of debris.


Posted By: BigWill Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 11:22 PM
I guess by focussing on the gov'ts perceived shortcomings it gives everyone the impression that there is a way to keep people safe from the bad guys, but the Russian gov't just didn't do it.
I think the reality is that it is impossible to defend against all attacks.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 11:36 PM
Our director of Homeland Security lives less than two miles from us. He has a line..."We have to be right everytime... the terrorist has to be right just once"

By the way, Regarding Gas prices... in 1980 they averaged $1.10 per gallon... In this area, today, they are $1.89 per gallon ... a 73 % increase in 24 years.

The Federal government ... in 1980, spent $532 billion... in 2004 - $2319 billion ... or a 340% increase.

We need Big Oil to run the federal budget ! ...
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/06/04 11:53 PM
Big Will and CraigSub, I agree with you both - media coverage of the slaughter of the children in Besla is disgusting. They appear to be blaming the Russians instead of the Jihadists. Referring to the 10 Arabs found among them as "mercenaries" is absurd. Does anyone think they were in this for the money? Was there any money involved except for the (probably Saudi) money used to finance the slaughter? The media are guilty of severe misdirection in this matter, severe misdirection and moral imbecilism.
Posted By: littleb Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 02:30 AM
I simply meant that we don't know one way or another. I have suspicions, like we all do. No, I don't believe the government is controlling Saudi oil supplies. They may be in control of Iraqi oil supplies since we are occupying their country. I don't think we'll know for sure for quite some time. I don't know the answer and I don't think many do.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 03:01 AM
We are OCCUPYING Iraq ? Log onto this...

www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html

I guess we also occupied Germany for 50 years, too... In the late 40's through the early 90's we averaged twice the troops that we have in Iraq, and we STILL have 70,000 today.

This country needs a civics lesson...
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 03:23 AM
For those who don't wish to find the above mentioned site... It is the new Iraqi constitution outline. The civics lesson... Occupied countries don't get to write their own constitution. We fought a war in the 1770's over that.

You see, The Brits in 1774 were not working towards our self governance... 143 YEARS after Plymouth Rock...

15 months after the fall of Hussein, Iraq has drafted a constitution...


Posted By: BigWill Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 03:36 AM
Nice catch, 2x6. "Mercenaries" is obviously not the correct word. Maybe "Fu*k!ng scum" would be better?
The school disaster in Russia has really opened my eyes to new possibilities. What was that great quote from Rumsfeld? Something like, "There are known knowns..., known unknowns... and unknown unknowns..."? Massacring school children in huge numbers would have to fall in that last category - until now. How could rational people anticipate an attack like that?

Out here in California we have one cop at almost every high school, but even if you had four or ten there is simply nothing to prevent the same thing from happening here. I'm not trying to spread panic, but we have lots of reasons to be very concerned about the enemies who have been attacking us for the past 30+ years.
I wonder which one of those geniuses came up with that idea, "Hey let's murder some schoolkids, that will show 'em".
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 03:39 AM
Same ones who celebrated the slaughter of infants in the nursery of the Ma'alot Kibbutz.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 03:49 AM
Bigwill ... 2x6 ... There will be more from these people. militants/mercanaries my butt... They are murderers... It is the right time for the GOOD GUYS to show UNITY...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/07/04 09:48 AM
In reply to:

this threat to kill every American by Muslim extremist terrorists


Believing that this is their ultimate goal is seeing the world in black and white only. They are attacking us for much more complicated reasons than the naive belief that they want us all dead.

Still, if you do believe they want us all dead, you need to ask youself, "Self, WHY do they want us all dead?" It's NOT that they hate our freedom. It's NOT that we aren't just like them.

You also need to ask youself, "What makes someone a 'terrorist'?"

The right constantly falls back on the "They hate us" and "They want to see us all killed" argument -- all the while keeping the real, historical, underlying reasons unspoken.

You can bomb and hunt down and try to eradicate terrorist by using force and military might. That may make us safer in the short-term. But you can't honestly believe is will make a constructive difference for subsequent generations. Safety by force is illusory. If someone wants to do us great damage, they will find a way.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a realist - 09/07/04 10:10 AM
In reply to:

I have been called "high and mighty" and "rhetorical" here... and have not called anyone names


I would like to state for the record that this is a very misleading statement.

When I said "And I'm frankly becoming annoyed by your high-and-mighty stance here," it was a direct response to your statement, "it is nothing more than your own, America is wrong... self loathing." Mine was a comment on your actions. Yours was a comment on my character -- to which I have every right to take offense.

As for the "rhetorical" discussion, that again was a comment on your actions, not on your character. You even agreed that your questions were rhetorical because you conceded that both you and those whom you were questioning (hopefully) knew the answer.

To me, name-calling is a character attack, not giving someone an opinion about their actions.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 10:17 AM
Let's say it does happen (perish the thought)? What to you think the country's reaction would be, on a governmental level?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 11:16 AM
PM - They DO hate our lifestyle. They DO want us dead. If a murderer wants you dead, are you going to try to reason with him ? Or defend yourself.

And you can dress it anyway you want, you called my stance "high and mighty" ... that is still calling names and lowering the level of conversation.

I agree with the basics that our current government is doing to fight terrorists. You say hunting them down and killing them is not an answer. Well, Russia tried being nice, as has France... and what did it get them ?

But let us give this another shot... you think we somehow are also responsible for the terrorist's acts. I am on record as blaming the terrorists and them alone.

More questions...

1. What did we do that caused 9/11 to happen ?
2. What, and be specific, would be YOUR solution to world terrorism ?
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 03:46 PM
Help establish a nation for the Palestinians, and Pack up and get the hell out of the Middle East?

If you remember correctly Israel and Palestine were in Peace talks at the end of Clinton's administration. Then 9/11 happened and Bush's response was to bomb the [censored] out of Afghanistan. That opened the door to bombing nations in response to a terrorist attack. What did Israel do the very same week? Sent gunships into Palestine. Violence breeds violence. In the long haul, controlling people through fear and violence is never going to solve anything.


Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 05:22 PM
First, The suggestion that there was something going on at the end of the Clinton administration, or any before that, is rather muted, because peace TALKS have been on going in the middle east for decades. The ceasefire that started in March , 2000 ended on September 28, 2000, when the Palestinians attacked, Israel responded, and they were back at it. This next series of violence was continuous from September, 2000 through 9/11, and continues today ... 9/11 DID send a lot of fear through Israel... and celebrations through the Arab world...

And the other half of establishing a Palestinian State HAS to include the stopping of the Arab War against Israel. It IS still the Arab goal to eradicate Israel. In 2002, Saudi Arabia DID propose that the Arab war against Israel stop in exchange for Israel allowing the permanent Palestinian State.

As for packing up and leaving the middle east... We HAVE been working through the UN on this matter... and leaving would mean a total pull out of the UN.

This would also lead to the continuation of the Arab War to eradicate Israel... Which means Israel would have two choices... one is being eliminated... the other is their possible only eventual defense.... Nuclear.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 05:26 PM
Please explain this...

You all clearly think the Chechnyan rebels are terrorists, but your President must think otherwise.

I'm genuinely curious to hear that you think.


Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 05:37 PM
First... From 1992 until 2000, Bill Clinton was our President, and I referred to him that way. I see you disavow that President Bush is your president. This comes as no surprise.

The article you point out is regarding one man who has been here for two years. He had NOTHING to do with this recent event in Russia.

This terrorist act was the killing of hundreds of students, many shot in the back. The man who was given asylum had precisely nothing to do with this attack.

I do think there was a major change in the methods in Chechnya... Or perhaps the "rebels" there have always made killing school children a part of their methodology, and we were not made aware of it.

I used to have empathy for Chechnya, now that they are using terrorist techniques, I don't.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 05:56 PM
Dang you get your panties in a bunch over my not calling George by his proper title don't you? If you'll note, I didn't say "President" Clinton either.

Rather then cause you any more grief, I'll start adding titles to people's names.

Regarding Ilias Akhmadov, the Russians seem to disagree with you...and that was PRIOR to the whole school hostage situation.

What about the bigger idea I posed. Do you really believe that violence, in the end, can ever bring peace? Do you really believe that? Or is your plan to control the world with an iron fist forever? Do you not think that all this flexing of power is not going to breed even more resentment for the US? Nearly the entire globe is looking at the US and shaking their heads. How does that make thew world safer?




Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 06:01 PM
In reply to:

If a murderer wants you dead, are you going to try to reason with him ? Or defend yourself.


This presupposes that the murderer is staring me in the face, with weapon drawn.

True, it might be a little late for this, but if you had the chance to prevent someone from becoming a murderer in the first place, wouldn't you take it? Aren't preventive measures better and less costly (both in terms of dollars and lives) than reactionary measures?
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 06:01 PM
Does President Bush make asylum decisions? And didn't the Homeland Security people challenge that decision?

I do think there is something to Spiff's statement, though. that The USA going into Afghanistan and certianly Iraq encouraged other nations to bomb and think about "doing unto others before they do unto you."

More statements and not questions - will I ever learn?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 06:04 PM
To start with, Most of the world is not looking at us and shaking their heads. In fact, after this weekend, a lot more are seeing how hard this fight will be, and are, if they are being honest, starting to understand these terrorists have a common goal.

Russia thought it was safe from terrorism because it opposed us... they were wrong.

And I have no interest in controlling the world with an Iron fist. I DO, however, understand that sometimes violence is needed to defeat evil. What happened in Russia was an act of evil.

Looking at your position, that violence only leads to more violence... On 9/11/01, we were bombed in a sneak attack. On 12/07/41, We were bombed in an earlier sneak attack. I gather that you would have negotiated with the Japanese then, too ? Afterall, violence only brings more vioence.

And for clarity... you said "your president", not "our president" ... and I don't wear panties.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 06:08 PM
Donald, in 2001, Osama Bin Laden planned the World Trade Center bombing. He was in Afghanistan, as part of the Taliban, and supported by the Taliban. They bombed US ... We responded.

I know you have a big heart, but Bin Laden and his followers will not negotiate peace...
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 06:22 PM
PM - Preventing a murderer from becoming one is not a proveable science. Sure, I wish we could do just that, prevent a murderer from becoming one.

Look at Iraq, the vast majority of the country wants the new government to succeed... and the terrorists are a small minority of ANY country. Why does 99 % of any county manage not to become homicidal ? They have a fringe that loves to kill. One major difference between them and us, their governments don't put a stop to it. Picture Timothy McVeigh and his ilk with our government not paying attention... they would be terrorists... (oops... they succeeded, and were terrorists... some people just plain HATE).

By the way, if anyone looked at the link to the new Iraqi constitution, you would see it calls for Islam to be the state religion... not exactly the language a US puppet would use.

It is a pretty good read... and a great start for the Iraqi people to live in freedom.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 06:32 PM
Sorry...boxers.

A conservative friend of mine suggested the idea of a single term president, that serves for six years. I kind of like the idea.

With the system we have now, the new president gets into office and spends the beginning of his first term getting his new team assembled and just getting the transition underway. Then he needs to almost immediately beging thinking about the re-election campaign. Maybe not actively campaigning, but it's there in the background. Many of their policies need to be made based on what will keep them in office for a second term.

Six years...one term. What do you think? What are some pros and cons to the idea?



Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 06:39 PM
BigWill mentioned that yesterday ... All we need to do is get 67 Senators to OK the idea for a new amendment... and 38 States to ratify it, and we are good to go.

There are some parts of the idea that have merit... but the likelyhood pretty small.

My Liberal sister was stopped in her tracks when I suggested the best finance reform... You can give as much as you want to any candidate... but it will be fully disclosed. Want to give Pat Buchanon $10 million ? Go for it... but it will be publicized...

If you are Joe Blow running for President (no President Blow jokes, people... ) , and want to take $1 million from the "Pedophiles for Freedom", go for it... but that will ALSO be disclosed.

And to bring some humor into this... perhaps we could stop terror by making all those caught listen to Mr. Buchanan 24/7 ...
Posted By: jorge016 Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 06:50 PM
Any ideas on how to limit the length of the campaign-we lived in Iowa for a few years and it seemed that within weeks of the completed election, talk turned to the next Iowa caucus. The election of our President has become a multi-media industry-in my opinion too much time and money are spent campaigning.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 06:55 PM
Well... For starters, reduce the size of government. If the government was not the focus of so many people's lives, the long election cycle would not exist.

The Federal Government brings in more $$$$ than the entire Fortune 500 combined... There are estimates the campaign will hit $1 billion this year... which is 1/20th of one percent of the size of the government's annual "take" ...

Ask ANY businessman if He/She would like to keep the advertising that low as a percentage of revenue...
Posted By: spiffnme re: Campaign reform - 09/07/04 06:57 PM
I'm all for overhauling the campaigning system. It boils down to the guy with the most money usually wins.

Debates...If you're on the ballot in all 50 states, you should be part of the Presidential debates. Much like every station broadcasts major Presidential speaches, the debates should be on every station. They should be annoyingly difficult not to watch. The FCC could easily say that all OTA broadcast stations must air the debates.

Fund Raising - Something needs to be done to balance the field. The biggest reason there are only two "real" parties is that the other candidates don't get enough exposure. They don't get the exposure because they can't afford the TV time. I TOTALLY agree about the full disclosure of all donations. Although I'm not so sure I'm totally opposed to the radical idea of eliminating all private and corporate donations all together. It's the money that corrupts. Give each candidate (who manages to get on all 50 states ballot) an equal amount of campaign money. If they all have the same amount of money (government money, so that no candidate is beholdent to any corporation or special interest), it would go a loooong way to helping fix the problem.


Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 07:07 PM
Don't get me wrong - I should have been more specific.

I thought we needed to go in there, to Afghanistan, and get the main heads of that hydra. I was supporting THAT war.

Iraq I didn't understand the point of. After all this time I still don't. Oil is the closest to accurate reason I can see, but I have heard good reasons against that theory even coming from the peace niks. (Though I forget what they are now).

Thank you for sharing your perspectives on why we went in there and the good that came of it. I just have to come to my own opinions, of course.
Posted By: craigsub Re: re: Campaign reform - 09/07/04 07:12 PM
Spiff ... With the First Amendment, completely getting the campaign expense under control will never happen, which is a GOOD thing... Once you start limiting speech, where does it stop ?

If money corrupts... then think about the size of government... Larger than the entire fortune 500.. THAT is where the corrupting force comes in... not the ads...


Posted By: jorge016 Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 07:14 PM
But how will we ever reduce the size of gov't-these guys appeal to the general electorate by promising the moon. Once elected they can't possibly deliver on the promises. I'm an advocate for term limits, but don't see that as a cure all. The amount of $$$ spent on the lavish production of the national conventions is crazy. And what did we see-it used to be that the conventions were all televised and the electorate was privy to all the business of the convention. Now we see what the national committees and networks choose.

I just started reading a book (fiction) called "Term Limits" by Vince Flynn. Within the first few chapters 3 prominent politicians are assassinated. The group who takes responsibity writes a communique stating that until the President and Congress reduce spending and pass a zero based budget, more assassinations will occur. A violent way to start a revolution, but is making for an interesting read.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 07:15 PM
Donald... When you get the chance, look at the site I posted earlier... and read what the Iraqis put into their constitution.... what you will read is a reaction to everything they did not have under Hussein. Freedom, Voting rights, etc...

Also ... There is no doubt that Hussein would eventially have nukes...
Posted By: littleb Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 07:15 PM
I know this will never happen, but, I would prefer a parliamentary form of government as they have in Europe, where the majority party leader becomes the prime minister/president and an election for a new government can be called for at anytime, depending upon the faith the electorite have in the ruling party.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 07:19 PM
I read Term Limits ... pretty good book. As for how to reduce the size of government... a lot of that gets to the "Civics Lesson" I mentioned yesterday... People really have no idea how much the government controls our lives...

If you get a check from the government, they own a part of you, and they know it. I wish I had the answer to getting people to truly understand how much better off we could be... but I don't.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: re: Campaign reform - 09/07/04 07:31 PM
Giving a money to a campaign is "free speech"?

What do you consider "limits to free speech"? Are President Bush's "freedom zones" not limits to free speech? Are not allowing the press to show the flag drapped coffins returning from Iraq, not a limit to free speech?

It's not the ads that corrupt. It's where the money came from to pay for the ads. Do you not think that both the Dems and Reps have the Drug companies best interests in mind? What about the energy industry? You can't possibly think that there's no connection to the pro-energy policies of this current administration, and the amount of money and favors that it's received from them do you?

If those favors and money were eliminated, we'd get a more honest government. A government that did not bend over backward to big corporate money. This isn't a party issue, both sides are in so deep with corporate ties it's sick. No more flights on corporate jets, no more massive donations...end it.

527's...like the Swift boat people, and MoveOn.org, have every right to exist. That's free speech. But they too need to be closely watched. They need to receive money ONLY from personal donations. Corporations should not be able to support these groups. What donations they receive should be fully disclosed.

Are we a country of the people, or of the corporations? Corporations should stop receiving rights as though there were a person.

Posted By: craigsub Re: re: Campaign reform - 09/07/04 07:44 PM
Spiff, I understand why this is frustrating... But every law limiting campaigning is easy to get around. Outlaw corporations giving money ? Then the Board of the corporation will do it. Corporations are not people, true, but they are made up of people.

As far as limiting access to coffins... that is a practice dating back to WWII ... that is a reasonable limit, not politicizing death... For either side... The first amendment was primarily to deal in plotical speech, as the British government at the time would jail a person for disagreeing with the King.

And yes, giving money to the candidate of your choice is free speech....

Yes, I agree there is corruption, but outlawing the giving of money will ensure it is done in secret.... go with full disclosure and let the people KNOW what money was being given to whom, by whom...
Posted By: spiffnme Re: re: Campaign reform - 09/07/04 07:49 PM
Why not audit their books? With all the corporate scandals of late, laws have been passed that require outside auditing. Why should campaigns not be audited? Eliminate the outside money, and insist on an audit of every penny that's spent. If they've spent more than they're budget, they've got some questions to answer.

Full disclosure is a good thing, but that won't stop the fact that these politicians will still be indebted to these huge donations.
Posted By: craigsub Re: re: Campaign reform - 09/07/04 08:07 PM
Spiff, All auditing would do is show who did the donating. The problem with auditing is time... by nature, auditing happens after the campaign is done. (Think income taxes) ... Full disclosure would do the same thing, and rather than have shadow groups, you have candidates or parties receiving the $$$$.

Of course, when this "pipe dream" gets passed... all you guys can abuse me... "That Friggin Craigsub, NOW we get to listen to candiate "A" tell us about Candidate "B" getting $4 million from the "Sheeplove Foundation" and "B" telling us how "A" got $4 million from the "Give each 5 year old an UZI" fund..." ...

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 09:49 PM
Donald -

First of all, I can't believe you didn't get flamed harder about using the term "occupiers". Iraq is a functioning, independent, self-governed country. The interim government has FULL power to request that we leave. They have their own constitution (thanks Craig for the link).

That word seems to pop up a lot lately and it's discouraging. It seems like people forget that we do not invade countries like Germany did with intent on controlling or occupying. The blood of our soldiers paints the soil of other nations so that they can be free. Then, when we are done, we pack up our things, clean our wounds, and head home. Perhaps someone should go remind those ingrate Frogs of how many of our guys died so that they could eat their croissants and look down their nose at the Americans.

As far as the War For Oil argument, I really would like to have someone present a cogent argument in support of this position. It just doesn't make sense. We're not getting squat out of this. It's costing us a ton of money and I don't see free Iraqi oil pumping in here. If you want to slap an alternative theory onto why Bush took on this war, take a look at this article. Someone sent that to me one day. I'm not sure that I am fully on board with Buchanan on this, but it's a heck of a lot more plausible than the War For Oil position.

As far as term limits go, we should be looking at term limits for our Senators and Representatives instead of concerning ourselves with the president. The floors of Congress are where the real corruption lies. It's there that you have career politicians prostituting the country for their own gain. They serve their primary goal at all times.....to maintain their own power and position. Whatever good intentions they had going in fall by the wayside when they get a whiff of that corrupting scent of special interest.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/07/04 09:50 PM
I was only playing with spiff on that one. My blaming of Senator Kerry was strictly tongue in cheek.

I also meant no disrespect when I addressed the President solely by his last name. I love the guy.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/07/04 10:00 PM
Uhh...

The Supreme Court actually stepped in and PREVENTED the election from being stolen.

One of Mr. Gore's advisors, a Mr. Daley... from Chicago... remember him? He had a prior history of stealing elections. This attempt was simply another attempt that got thwarted...


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 10:49 PM
In reply to:

perhaps we could stop terror by making all those caught listen to Mr. Buchanan 24/7 ...


Change that to Pat Robertson and you have yourself the definition of true torture.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 10:51 PM
Make it Pat Robertson and Hillary Clinton debating... Bi-partison Hell...
Posted By: BigWill Re: re: Campaign reform - 09/07/04 11:09 PM
Hey guys! School started so I have been very busy.
But I do have a moment now to interject (I did say earlier that I majored in PoliSci - and that I currently teach gov't right? ).

You guys probably wouldn't like a parliamentary system any better than what we have. From my studies of the Italian and German systems in college I remember concluding that they suck. Lots of politics involved in creating and maintaining coalitions/gov'ts. The proportional representation those gov'ts allow seems cool, but on a national scale it is really meaningless - the major parties still dominate.

Spiff, the main reason why there are only two major parties is the winner-take-all electoral system. The party with the broadest appeal wins all of a states electors (in the case of the Presidential election) rather than a percentage of electors corresponding to the election returns. Same for Congressional districts: the Greens, Commies and Libertarians will always get assed out unless they concentrate in one area.

And from what we see of term limits here in California... bad idea. Sounded good, I think I may have even voted for them years ago, but in practice it has left us with musical chairs in the state legislature, increased cronyism as politicians are forced out and looking for new work, a bunch of amateurs who look to their handlers and lobbyists for guidance, and a lack of vision (nobody is in office long enough to get things, big things, done). Bad, bad, bad.

What I like about a longer term for the President (and not necessarily limiting him to just one term - although that may not be a bad idea) is that he will be better insulated from political pressures for a longer period of time. Clearly many presidential actions are geared toward garnering support for re-election.

A benevolent dictatorship with periodic accountability to the people, not the politicians, special interest groups, etc... would be ideal for a country this size. Japan is toying with the idea of direct democracy (everybody voting on every issue on-line); want to bet how that experiment will work out?
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 11:44 PM
I don't think I used the word occupiers, but that is beside the point of your message.

I do believe the soldiers are there in order to free the people. I just don't think that is all there is to it for the people calling the shots. And a lot of people would agree with me - but that is not a good argument.

I don't want to argue the point. It would be a battle of wits with me as the unarmed man.

I read the Buchanan piece too and it sounds plausible and at least partly right. I am glad he started it out like he did or he would have just come off as antisemitic period.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 11:56 PM
In reply to:

I do believe the soldiers are there in order to free the people.


You forget that the people are already free. The soldiers are still there because if they weren't, to gov't would be overthrown and all hell would break loose -- more than it already has, that is.

To those who think I'm flip-flopping, I never said we should get out of Iraq ASAP. I do realize that once something like this is started, it has to be continued to at least a point where it is safe to withdraw without losing what was already accomplished.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/07/04 11:58 PM
I promised to find quotes from the current admin stating that Iraq was an imminent threat. Thankfully my good man, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has set up an entire database online of misleading statements regarding Iraq by the current admin. I just plugged in "Bush" and "Urgent Threat" and got four hits.

Iraq on the Record
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 12:01 AM
Don't forget to search under Rumsfeld, too.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 12:28 AM
Spiff, This is 38 pages long, and so far I have found a lot of the same statements that were made by Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the vast majority of other democrats.

The author of this piece is not exactly a neutral source. Congressman Waxman is every bit a complete party guy.

Remember, In 1999, the United Nations said Iraq had rnough materials to make 25,000 liters of Anthrax. Bill Clinton Bombed Iraq over WMD's.

The file quotes Joseph Wilson regarding HIS now known to be false statements.

And a major point I will emphasize again, The WMD's were known to be there. It was Hussein's job to prove to the inspectors he had destroyed them. It was not the inspector's job to prove they were there.

As I pointed out, and learned from researching sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Mid-East times, Hussein HAD WMD's. The source for this was the United Nations. They also had four months ro hide the evidence of said weapons. Every Biological and chemical weapon Iraq had in 1999 would fit into a gymnasium.

Let's think about this... You really don't want to get caught with WMD's ... but have them... Where in a 438,000 Square Km country, over 1/2 of which is DESERT, could you hide a 100x50x30 foot stockpile of weapons with four months to do it ?

I LOVE Dr. Kay's assertions that the trailers found were for making weather balloons... THAT is credible.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 12:54 AM
A Site... www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

And in 1998, President Clinton made the case that Bin Laden had ties with Hussein, even though he loathed the secular nature of th Iraqi dictator. He even issued an executive order regarding this connection.

As for some insight as to what I think, there is no doubt that President Clinton was also given at least 2 chances to have Bin Laden turned over. He turned those chances down.

Why am I not pounding home those points ? Simple, It solves nothing. We may have been spared 9/11, as some on the right suggest, Had President Clinton just done his job.

I don't buy THAT argument, either.... SOMEONE in Al Queda would have picked up the slack. This entire world terror network does work loosely together, and feed off each other. In World War II, we were getting our asses kicked for the first year. You did not see people trying to undermine the efforts of the Roosevelt administration, as some are doing to our President Bush.

We are at war, and will be for a long time. I just read an excellent piece in US World and News Report. The basics were this enemy is taught to hate us, and people like Bin Laden use vulnerable people... typically young men with no family ties, and promise them hero status either here or in heaven for doing Allah's work... It also points out that Iran is an even bigger threat. The author also makes the point the the scariest scenario for Iran IS a democratic Iraq. Great reading... and one thing he does NOT make the mistake of believing: The fallicy that if we would just UNDERSTAND what makes the terrorist hate us, we could learn to get along.

It was last week's issue...


Posted By: BigWill Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 04:58 AM
Man, you guys sure love arguing around in circles about the Iraq war, huh?

I'm stunned, however, that there is apparently a lack of consensus on the terrorists - their motivations, their intents, their utter lack of compunction, the impossibility of negotiations, the impossibility of inculcating new generations in Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere with the notion that the US is actually quite wonderful.

Of course they're the bad guys. Of course they want to kill us and our children. Why try to assign human attributes to such villains?



Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 11:28 AM
BigWill.. No circles here... I want a straight line to the elimination of those who kill innocent civilians. I still pray for them, but doubt there will be a conversion of their black hearts. And yes, I saw your ... no foul, my friend
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 08:03 PM
In reply to:

I want a straight line to the elimination of those who kill innocent civilians. I still pray for them, but doubt there will be a conversion of their black hearts.


It is difficult for me to understand how people can talk about elimination and God (prayer) in the same breath.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 08:41 PM
Ooh...goody. Let's get this thread talking about Politics AND Religion.

Surprise, surprise though...I'm with you on this one Peter. One of the many reasons I'm an athiest.

Posted By: bigjohn Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 08:52 PM
In reply to:

Let's get this thread talking about Politics AND Religion



for heavens sakes, NO!!

its been hard enough trying to keep up with just politics.. dont throw me in another monkey wrench!!

i just saw where some anti-bush book is supposed to be coming out this week. apparently, it is a sort of 'tell-all' about the whole bush clan. lord knows what all it talks about, but i am sure chris matthews and the rest will give me all the highlights.

i wonder if its a complete coincedence the book is coming out 8 weeks before the election.. ? HHHMMMM.. let me think about that one...

bigjohn
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 09:10 PM
The Democrats have been pissing and moaning about this swiftboat thing and calling for the President to denounce their actions....the actions of a group not directly related to the President's campaign. Now, today we have Terry McAuliffe who heads the DNC doing the same thing trying to call out the President on his Vietnam record. This is complete hypocracy. Instead of an independantly funded group, you now have the DNC directly slinging the same mud. Oh, "let's make this about the issues".....riiiiight. What are the chances that Kerry publicly condems his statements?....or salutes his service in the National Guard?....Let's see how quickly the media jumps on them for this double-standard....not holding my breath.

You have the Boston Globe suing to get Bush's records released and the Left is cheering them on, trying to keep the drual off of their shirts. Now, should another media outlet have the nuts to do the same thing with Kerry's records and watch the wrath both from the Democrats and the media alike.

Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly mind what the Globe is doing. It's their right and those records should be public. The problem is in the media and polical double-standard here. Both candidates should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Otherwise, you simply further clarify the bias.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 09:15 PM
PM, You have two groups... Group one is 100 school children. Group two is 20 terrorists holding guns, pointed at the children. Is there any doubt about which group I want eliminated ?

Yes, I will pray for the terrorists. No, I don't expect they will change.


Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 09:18 PM
And now you have this issue of drug use coming up. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be discussed, but how much are you going to hear from the media about how much pot Kerry probably smoked while marching on Washington?....you won't....and how is this pertinant to the majors issues of today?

This presidential election is deteriorating daily...It's discouraging. It's like watching Jerry Springer, but without the toothless wonders and inbred kissing-cousins.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 09:27 PM
...and how about this book that's out now:Treachery.. (read the summary - it was posted on Drudge yesterday)
This is the kind of crap that keeps me up at night. Kerry wants to go over and sit in the lap and hug the major EU members when we more and more find that they are the ones funneling the weapons to these lunatics.

Man, I'm getting myself all wired up....I'm outta here...gonna go home and look into my daughters eyes and try to forget for a second how screwed up our world is.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 11:17 PM
It is curious that we atheists seem to be more threatened by the Christian conservatives here in the US than we are the Muslim conservatives abroad. Those guys make our religous right look like Jane Fonda, Kerry, et al, in comparison. What is the worst that Falwell and the ilk would do? Certainly not fly planes into buildings, certainly not shoot children in the back as they're running for their parents' arms, not shoot mortars from 1000 year old holy sites, etc...

Putin has made some very clear, powerful, concise, unpoliticized statements regarding the terrorists. (He is far too blunt to be successful in our touchy-feely political landscape ). Do you think the Russians' resolve will get reasoned away by their pacifists? I'm thinking not, based on the crowds in Red Square and the Russian people's history of suffering and endurance. Compared to the millions upon millions of Russians lost in WWII, the utter devestation from the scorched earth strategy and siege warfare, the casualties from a global war on terror will probably not even dent their national psyche until long after the terrorists have been crushed.

I'm hoping for major policy swings in their dealings with Arab nations, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/08/04 11:55 PM
In reply to:

Is there any doubt about which group I want eliminated?


Ok, this is the last religious thing I will say (I promise):

WWJD?
Posted By: BigWill Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/09/04 12:38 AM
Get crucified?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/09/04 12:38 AM
I am pretty sure he would agree... Innocent life is to be protected. Heck, I think even athiests think that... By the way, I am not religious... I see to much BS at most churches... but that is going WAY off topic... Suffice it to say this, when I am at a church, and something from the actual Bible is discussed, I am almost shocked....

One of my closest friends is gay... needless to say, we have some REALLY interesting conversations. Politics, religion, football... Anyway, I get my fill of "religious" people... when they judge him.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/09/04 04:53 AM
Amen to that.

Since we've all been a bit "argumentative" lately, I'd like to state for the record that I still like you all and would share a beer/meal with any of you. Heck, if Kerry wins, I'll buy everyone here a beer -- provided you can make it to Ben & Nicks in Oakland on November 3rd.

After all, we're all Americans and we all love our country enough to want to change things that we think need improvement. Participating in open debate and hearing differing opinions are an important part of being a productive citizen.
Posted By: bridgman Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/09/04 05:52 AM
This whole "what to do about terrorism" debate seems to boil down to the old "where do you draw the line", aka "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

I think you cross a line when you target innocents.

If country A is occupying country B and some of country B's people use guerilla tactics to attack a superior occupying forces I don't have a problem with those people even if some of A's forces get killed. I call that war, even if undeclared and "low intensity".

If they start killing off non-military people (aid workers in Iraq, kids & parents in Russia) that is a different story. Hunt 'em down and hang 'em high.

Yes I realize where this leads. In WW2 both Axis and Allied powers crossed that line when they bombed major cities outside of the industrial areas. We probably crossed that line in Vietnam in a few cases as well (burning villages etc..).

IMO the big question is "what happens if you leave them alone -- do they go back to being farmers and doctors or do they grow into an arrogant, repressive dictatorship ?".

Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but I do not see any inherent good in the groups capturing and killing workers in Iraq or the group who occupied the school this week. Those are not freedom fighters, those are the animals which breed in conflict situations and which grow into the worst kind of regimes if we let them flourish.

For the record, I don't think Bush was completely honest about his reasons for going into Iraq, but "someone had to do it". My big criticism of the move into Iraq was that the US was not really ready for what happened after Hussein's forces were defeated.

If the post-war logistics had been handled better I don't think this debate would be happening. Every Iraqi ex-pat I know was cheering when the US took Saddam down -- but 6 months later they are all squirming a bit because it's hard to say that the Iraqis are better off today on balance.

It's easy to snipe from the sidelines, but if Calpine can set up 10 or 20 natural-gas-fired power plants in 6 months in the US I can't understand why we couldn't get the power back on faster in Iraq. You don't win hearts & minds by waging a war then fumbling the rebuild.

What do I know. I live in Canada and we wimped out anyways...

JB
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/09/04 06:31 AM
In another generation, when France's Muslim population hits the +25% mark and we hear demands for an independent Islamic state in what was France, do French authorities become occupiers? If French Islamic "freedom fighters" blow up French nurseries, busses, pizza parlors, will we hear the explanation that these atrocities are merely zealous warriors against occupation?

Why are US forces seen as occupiers in Iraq? We have removed a criminal, totalitarian Nazi regime, pumped massive amounts of aid into the country, rebuilt infrastructure a bit faster than the "freedom fighters" blow up the infrastructure, permitted the emergence of political institutions which have generated a constitution, prepared for national and local elections ... we are "occupiers" because we are seen as Christians present on holy Islamic soil.

What some folks don't seem to get is that we did not start this clash of civilizations. September 11, 2001 is the anniversary of a bloody wake up call - that a civilization is engaging in a religious war against the West.

Want to hear what that civilization is saying about 9/11?

Check out the current MEMRI

Here is a part of their recent review of Middle East media coverage of the anniversary - tell me there isn't a religious/cultural war going on:

Introduction
Days following the release of the September 11 Commission report this summer, Sheik Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, the former dean of the faculty of Shariah at the University of Qatar and a leading Arab reformist, wrote an article in the London Arabic daily Al-Hayat on August 2, 2004, asking, "Why won't we [Arabs] take the opportunity of the appearance of the September 11 commission's report to ponder why destructive violence and a culture of destruction have taken root in our society? Why won't we take this opportunity to reconsider our educational system, our curricula, including the religious, media, and cultural discourse that cause our youth to live in a constant tension with the world?"
Within hours of the September 11 attacks, conspiracy theories began to emerge in the Middle East.(1) They were repeated by the highest echelons of powers, including Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who was quoted in the Egyptian paper Al-Ahram weeks after the attack: "I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size of a pencil. Only a professional pilot could carry out this mission." A year following the attacks, Saudi Arabia's powerful Interior Minister Prince Nayef more explicitly blamed "the Zionists."

During this past year leading up to the third anniversary of the attacks, there has been a consistent stream of articles and TV programs in the region's government-controlled media continuing to focus on conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks. The commemoration within the region's media includes statements made by leading professors, religious leaders, government officials, and even Muslim-Americans.

These conspiracy theories primarily state that Arabs and Muslims were not involved and that the U.S. government and/or Jews/Israel are the true culprits. While it should be no surprise that Iran, a country with no official ties with the U.S., is supporting many lies regarding September 11, the U.S.'s closet Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are also supportive of these lies.

The Egyptian Media
In Egypt, Former Dean of Humanities at 'Ein Shams University, Mustafa Shak'a, was interviewed by Iqra TV on June 16, 2004. Shak'a attributed the September 11 attacks to the U.S. and the Jews: "To this day, we don't know who attacked the U.S. on September 11. Why is the attack attributed to bin Laden although it has not been proven that he was involved in the operation? It is way above his capabilities. Those who created him have made him a legend. The operation was 100% American, and this is not the place to elaborate, but what proves the operation was a Jewish one is that five Jews climbed up a high building and filmed the first attack of the first plane…"(2)

Another Egyptian professor, Galal Amin of the American University, wrote an article for Al-Ahram in April 2004: "The claim that the Greater Middle East Initiative aims, wholly or partly, to eliminate terror of the type seen on September 11, 2001 is unconvincing, for several reasons. One is that there is still doubt that the September attacks were the outcome of Arab and Islamic terror. No conclusive proof to this effect is yet available. Many writers, American and European, as well as Arab, suspect that the attacks were carried out by Americans, or with American assistance, or that Americans knew about them and kept silent. Such doubts are strong and rest on damning evidence, but the U.S. administration forcefully censors them and bans any discussion of the matter – something that, by the way, makes one suspect the U.S. administration's commitment to 'knowledge.' But enough of that."

In an article in the Egyptian government daily Al-Gumhouriyya titled 'The Secret Israeli Weapon,' published on April 23, 2004, deputy editor Abd Al-Wahhab 'Adas accused the Jews of perpetrating all terrorism throughout the world, including the September 11 attacks: "Actually, it is they who are behind the events of September 11. Proof of this is what was broadcast by the Canadian news agency on September 17 … that prior to the events the CIA had received a report that the Mossad would carry out an attack operation on American territory, in a new attempt to divert attention from the barbaric Israeli operations against the Palestinian people. Further [proof] of this is the news in the American papers at that time, that 4,000 Jews of American origin who worked at the World Trade Center received instructions from the Mossad not to go to work that day. We also find a heavy blackout by America regarding the results of the investigations into the September 11 events. So far it has published no conclusions, and has not told us who the real perpetrator of these events is, as revealed by the investigations. Since America knows very well that the Jews and the Mossad are behind these events, it will never declare the results of the investigations..."

On August 9, 2004 Galal Dweidar, editor of the Al-Akhbar Egyptian government daily, wrote an article titled 'Barbarian Imperialist Occupation,' questioning who was really behind the attacks: "…There are strong doubts on the identity of those who schemed the terrorist action that targeted the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York…"

To commemorate the attacks of two years earlier, on September 11, 2003 Al-Arabiyya TV conducted an interview with Egyptian Muhammad Al-Amir Atta, father of Muhammad Atta, a leader of the 19 hijackers. He characterized the September 11 attacks as "100% made-in-America. All the facts that have been verified and published in the press, on television, and in the statements of officials in the U.S. and abroad prove definitively that this even is an American product, as I said on Egyptian television 72 hours after the event… The subject [at hand] is not my son; it is more general. Is my son or any of the other 19 young men – four of whom died over a year before the event – are these young men the ones who went to the 4,000 Jews and Americans who work at the World Trade Center to tell them not to go [there]? What I am saying was not stated in the newspapers, not stated by you, and not by me; rather, it was stated by America, and that is the truth. Four thousand American Jews did not come to work on September 11. [Moreover], none of the 101 Jewish businessmen – without exception – who booked tickets for business purposes for the four flights in America boarded the four planes, and none of them notified the airlines [that they would not be boarding]. About a week after the event, the American authorities arrested 117 Israelis – and not only Jews but Jewish Israelis – who had come from Israel to the U.S. and live in different groups located in the same vicinity in Florida. They were found to be holding detailed maps on the routes of the four planes. They were questioned, but no information was released. [Moreover], the FBI announced it had recorded two telephone calls on the 11th made by two congressmen at the Capitol to two American newspapers, in which they said, 'The zero hour has come, and the competition begins tomorrow.'"

For its September 10, 2003 edition, the Egyptian weekly Akher Sa'a interviewed several experts for articles commemorating September 11, 2001. Among them was General Mahmoud Khalaf, an Egyptian strategic expert, who said: "What took place on September 11 was a conspiratorial plan by the U.S. to justify invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. In 1999, books were published exposing a plan by far right-wing American hawks to fulfill the dream of a large empire, and there was an opportunity [for this] on September 11. They did not wait for investigations to expose the perpetrator of the operation, not even for those exposing the negligence in preventing the event. The American invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, in other words, only three weeks after the September 11 event. This is not at all a sufficient period in which to transfer [military] forces, train them, and draft the operational plans. This proves these plans were ready at an earlier date and that the forces were close to Afghanistan, the results of which are unknown to this day. [In addition], the declared goals were not achieved. Afghanistan did not develop, it has not democracy or control, and bin Laden was not caught. But what was achieved is that the Americans positioned themselves along the borders of Russia, China, central Asia, and in the center of Islamic countries."

Also interviewed for Akher Sa'a was General Ali Hafzi, governor of the northern Sinai district: "The September 11, 2001 event was meant to determine and direct the events of the 21st century in order to force American hegemony on the world and to enable it to be the sole superpower in the world and prevent the Soviet Union from returning, or prevent the emergence of new superpowers, such as China, Japan, and others… The Americans have not yet announced the results of the investigation of the event. Moreover, an important document published after the event says that 6,000 Jews who used to work daily with the companies and offices housed in the World Trade Center did not go to [that area] on the day of September 11. Let us take a look at what [the U.S.] has achieved so far, beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan. The U.S. has already reached the border of the former Soviet Union in order to prevent an attempt on the part of [the Soviets] to reemerge. It has also reached the Chinese border in order to keep it from spreading to a particular local or regional border so that it does not reach the stage of becoming a world superpower…"


Posted By: bridgman Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/09/04 06:49 AM
>>In another generation, when France's Muslim population hits the +25% mark and we hear demands for an independent Islamic state in what was France, do French authorities become occupiers? If French Islamic "freedom fighters" blow up French nurseries, busses, pizza parlors, will we hear the explanation that these atrocities are merely zealous warriors against occupation?

Yikes. No. Sorry, I thought I was being more clear.

If a military force moves into a country and supports a new government I think we can expect some friction. If immigration and differential birth rates in France result in >25% Muslim population that does NOT make the French an occupying power. We have the same stresses in Canada, almost 50% of the population in Toronto is recent immigrants or their first-generation descendants. Scary.

If some Iraqis have a problem with the current government in Iraq and take potshots at the US military forces I could argue that they are "freedom fighters" but we mostly call them "Iraqi casualties". I'm trying to say "take your fight to the military, they are organized to handle your complaints. Don't pick on the unarmed innocents".

Anyone who targets non-combatants in France, Iraq, or anywhere else IMO is a murderer and deserves to be hunted down and killed.

There is a lot of sabotage to the oil infrastructure but I'm not hearing about much sabotage on the civil infrastructure (power, water, phone etc..). I could be wrong there, of course...

Again, I do agree there are some fundamental problems here. We do have a religious war going on in the sense that there is an organized Muslim movement against what they perceive as a decadent and heavy-handed West, but *most* Muslims are not part of the struggle.

This is going to be an ugly struggle, no question. I am trying to weigh in on the side that has zero tolerance for terrorism but obviously not doing a very good job.
Posted By: mhorgel Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 06:43 PM
In reply to:

you forgot bribing the Supreme Court to put the final touches on a stolen election...




I an SO FRIGGIN' TIRED of hearing this whine from the Democrats. The votes were counted no less than three times, and Bush won every recount. If there was any problem with the election, it was a ballot that was confusing to some voters that was chosen by a DEMOCTRATIC administration. Y'all need to get over the "stolen election" thing, because it is complete bull$#!!!

Mark
Posted By: mhorgel Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 06:48 PM
In reply to:

And Israel - how far have they gotten by coming down very hard on the Palestinans?




How can you combat a group that is willing to strap a bunch of explosives to their bodies and blow themselves up on a bus full of schoolchildren? The only way to deter such attacks would be to make it known that every family member of every suicide bomber would be searched out and eliminated, and I don't think that even the Israeli secret police has the stomach to do that.

Mark
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 07:01 PM
How do you account for eliminating 1,000's of (mostly black) Democratic voters from even being able to vote?


Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 07:19 PM
Russia is not entirely innocent. They let so many other provinces break away but not the Chechens who they deported wholesale years ago, and have been awful to - so the Russians just upped the ante I think. They have not gone to the extent SOME of the Chechens have gone to - true.

Not that being nice is the solution now, but addressing some of the injustices done would help. Meanwhile - yes we have to be strong in our approach to them. Military strength with work toward justice.

It would also help in our situation with Al Queda (here come the flames!!!) not that we could get anywhere by talking to them - but by dealing more fairly with the Palestineans it would take away some of their recruits.

I do apprecuiate other points of view - this is what I think would be the best way. Even the best case scenario kills off a lot of people on both sides - but less, hopefully, than what we have done recently.

This is not a wholesale condemnation of our approach - we do try at times to negotiate fairly and we are MUCH different than the terrorists, I agree.

Awaiting incoming...
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 07:27 PM
The Miami paper said that the newspaper combine that looked the situation over a few months later determined that there were three possible outcomes depending on which standards one used. Two of those outcomes of the vote in Florida had Gore winning, the third had Bush winning. (If my memory serves me - it is probably still on line somewhere).

The headline read something like "Bush would have won regardless"

???????????????

Maybe there was a later article that rebutted this 2-1 finding? Or maybe I did not get the nuance of how Bush would have won anyway?
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 07:30 PM
By the way, I do get the sense here that everyone loves their country and wants to be fair and just to other peoples while defending innocent lives.

And I am botheirng to post because I learn from rebuttals.

Just a reminder to myself in the midst of the arguments.
Posted By: mhorgel Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/09/04 08:03 PM
In reply to:

Well... For starters, reduce the size of government. If the government was not the focus of so many people's lives, the long election cycle would not exist.




This is the 'for starters' answer to just about every problem in this country. 40 cents of every dollar generated in this country is consumed by the government. The government spends more and more money, and whenever you accept a government dollar, you subject yourself to onerous rules and regulations. Place health care under the government's care? The worst thing imaginable for the level of health care in this country. In this respect, the two rival political parties in this country are so close together idealogically as to be almost indistinguishable.

The job of the federal government ought to be to defend our borders, build roads, and very little else.

Mark
Posted By: mhorgel Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/09/04 08:11 PM
In reply to:

It is difficult for me to understand how people can talk about elimination and God (prayer) in the same breath.




How about the entire old testament? God asked Isaac to eliminate Abraham (if I remember correctly...it's been a long time)...Sodom and Gemorrah...The great flood. The entire Judeo-Christian system is based on a document glorifying divine retribution!

Mark
Posted By: mhorgel Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 08:30 PM
In reply to:

How do you account for eliminating 1,000's of (mostly black) Democratic voters from even being able to vote?




To whom are you referring?

Mark
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 09:01 PM
OK....I'm not going to try to restate everything that this guy says, because it's too extensive. If you go to the following site, you will find this guy's extensive analysis of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 assertions. In there, if you look at Deceit #3 and 4, you will find a lengthy explanation of the Florida election scandal and Moore's (the Left's) assertions about the deprived votes and the recounts. LINK

It's an extremely long analysis which helps to debunk many of Moore's deceptions.

Am I having deja vu or have I posted this in the past?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 09:12 PM
yes, it has been posted before.. i dont know if by you, but by someone. its still fun to go read. it just makes me have the same thoughts as i had the first time.. i find humor in the fact that this guy totally dissected every word and image in that whole movie to try and debunk as much as possible. i am sure he had a whole crew of people trying to find wrongs in this film. bottom line is, just the fact that he, and his party, felt compelled to do this, proves how scared they were/are of this movie.

i think its supposed to be out on DVD before the election? not real sure.. i would go buy 'roger and me' before i even thought about buying this one.

bigjohn
Posted By: jorge016 Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/09/04 09:20 PM
Michael Moore's an entertainer with a political bent.
Fahrenheit 911 pisses people off, gives "the right" something to consume their time besides furthering their own agenda, and of course provokes a little thought. Unlike the Swift Boat Vets he sold a lot of tickets and made a lot of money, what does that make him-a pissed of Dem or one helluva capitalist. As far as the link goes, what would you expect the Independence Institute to say about Moore's claims? Might they have a political agenda?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/09/04 09:56 PM
In reply to:

The entire Judeo-Christian system is based on a document glorifying divine retribution!


I'd love to respond to this, but I already promised I wouldn't discuss religion any longer.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/09/04 11:38 PM
So, bridgman, who are you rooting for in the Iraq conflict? The guys who are just "defending their country from an occupying force" or the guys who are attempting to help the Iraqi people establish a representative gov't in Iraq?

The more I think about the war in Iraq the more it becomes clear that the long-term success of the new Iraqi gov't is pivotal in the war on terror. Why? Because we cannot kill all current AND future terrorists by waging war (without killing all the innocents as well, that is).

The only acceptable way to "win" completely is to get them to accept us, tolerate differences among themselves, and likely adopt some modern ways. A successful, secular western-style gov't with a thriving economy that creates great social benefits for the masses of its people - to have that in Iraq would be a great motivator to neighboring countries to shake off the regimes which oppress them, to disavow terrorist tactics and organizations, and to halt recruitment into those organizations. It's been said before, but the Arab world has got to change or we'll be faced with the same kind of irresolvable, protracted war the Israelis have. Their neighbors want them dead - that is why there is no Palestinian state. Any agreements the Arabs make with Israel will only be temporary, strategic lulls in the conflict.

2x6, thanks for the info - that made for some fun reading. Sounds like it could be Michael Moore's next movie: "Global Jewish/American Conspiracy to Rule the World." Not very catchy, I guess.

How ridiculous are those editors and bureaucrats to apparently believe that the Mossad has the ear of every Jew on the planet - and that 4000 Jews would stay home from work on 9-11, but let their friends and coworkers go off to die? Absurd bunch of people over there.

I'm getting ready to embrace the "gay gene" idea - the "moron gene" seems to be flourishing in the Middle East.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/09/04 11:47 PM
In reply to:

I'm getting ready to embrace the "gay gene" idea




...biting tongue...


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 12:57 AM
I just read a very excellent article that talks about truth and why is politically important. It's called Who Cares About the Truth?

Here's a choice exerpt:

"It follows that a necessary condition for fundamental rights is a distinction between what the government -- in the wide sense of the term -- says is so and what is true. That is, in order for me to understand that I have fundamental rights, it must be possible for me to have the following thought: that even though everyone else in my community thinks that, for example, same-sex marriages should be outlawed, people of the same sex still have a right to be married. But I couldn't have that thought unless I was able to entertain the idea that believing doesn't make things so, that there is something that my thoughts can respond to other than the views of my fellow citizens, powerful or not. The very concept of a fundamental right presupposes the concept of truth. Take-home lesson: If you care about your rights, you had better care about truth."

And another one:

"governmental transparency and freedom of information are the first defenses against tyranny. The less a government feels the need to be truthful, the more prone it is to try and get away with doing what wouldn't be approved by its citizens in the light of day, whether that means breaking into the Watergate Hotel, bombing Cambodia, or authorizing the use of torture on prisoners. Even when they don't affect us directly, secret actions like those indirectly damage the integrity of our democracy. What you don't know can hurt you."
Posted By: les9596 Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/10/04 01:42 AM
In reply to:

Russia is not entirely innocent.



Neither are you. Neither am I. I do not want Americans to do to Russia now what the rest of the world did to the U.S. after 9/11. "Well, yes, it was bad, but the U.S. is not entirely innocent either. So we will sit in judgement of the two, and weigh their relative guilt, and proportion our blame accordingly."

Morally, there is only a difference of degree between the guy who steals my lawnmower and the guy who rapes my child. But if I can't see a threshold difference, an actionable difference, between the two in my real life, evolution will tend to select against me and my family.

Russians have done much wrong. But they are not tribal barbarian death cultists, riding out of the dark ages to blow up the whole world on their way to glory. I'd say there's a threshold difference between the two, just as there is a threshold difference between us and them. If we collectively are unable to see that difference, and act upon it, evolution will tend to select against us collectively.
Posted By: bridgman Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 02:33 AM
>>So, bridgman, who are you rooting for in the Iraq conflict? The guys who are just "defending their country from an occupying force" or the guys who are attempting to help the Iraqi people establish a representative gov't in Iraq?

I'm rooting for the US/Britons (and the handful of Canadians ) all the way. I was just trying to make it clear that there are at least two different kinds of "resistance" at play in Iraq, and that nobody should even be TRYING to hang a "freedom fighter" placard on the groups who are kidnapping and killing aid workers. They are animals, not "guys defending their country from an occupying force", and deserve to be hunted down and eradicated. They will NOT get better when the conflict ends, they will still be bullies and murderers.

There ARE a lot of pissed off Iraqis right now who fervently believe things were better for them before the war -- typically the middle classes who would be buying Axioms right now if the power wasn't off again and their place of work wasn't a smoking hole in the ground. These are the guys who will go back to work and become solid citizens once things settle down.

I just don't like seeing the likes of the group which bombed and shot a school full of children being treated with the same moral ambiguity as a group of pissed off Iraqis who felt they were better off before the war and are protesting & throwing stones at the US troops.

The first group needs to be hunted down and wiped out without mercy. The second group should be given a bit of consideration.

We're all reading too much into this thread. I shouldn't have piped in on politics when I was dog-tired. I was just replying to someone's comment that maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the REAL terrorists because they might have had a legitimate grip -- trying to say that "if you have a legitimate gripe and you're taking potshots at the troops I can sympathize although we're probably going to have to return fire and kill you -- but once you start killing innocents there is no return and no mercy, you get hunted down and wiped out".

Anyways, I'm even more tired tonight. Don't think this is helping.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 02:36 AM
les9596, I really liked what you had to say.

pmbuko, I'm not sure what your point was. I earlier voiced my irrelevant opinion that gov't should stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. That marriage seemed like a religous institution and should therefore be left to churches. The gov't should issue civil union permits (or whatever) to provide couples legal status and afford equal rights to all.
I'm not anti-gay. I just wanted to point out that if you attribute sexual behavior to your genetic makeup, then there is no point in condemning, or trying to rehabilitate, sexual deviants such as pedophiles, rapists, and the like. Further, if you attribute sexual behavior to genetic makeup, then what behaviors are NOT determined by your DNA? Criminal behavior? Cooperative behavior? Terrorist-type behavior?

I was not actually disagreeing with spiff, just playing devil's advocate. I was actually hoping to start a discussion centered on the notion that behavior does often stem from genetic causes (instinctive behavior), and that differences (including behavioral differences) exist between human races beyond the color of the skin. Further, that cultural differences are not only the product of disparate histories, but the product of variances in the genetic make-up of the population. We recognize such differences in different breeds of other species, but not in our own.

Back to the terrorists. Here's what some Arab leaders said recently (they don't all buy into the conspiracy theories that 2x6 showed us earlier):

***"What is the guilt of those children? Why should they be responsible for your conflict with the government?" Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, Egypt's highest-ranking imam, railed during Friday prayers in the Egyptian town of Benha. "You are taking Islam as a cover and it is a deceptive cover; those who carry out the kidnappings are criminals, not Muslims."

Sheik Tantawi's refrain was a familiar one among Muslims who have felt unfairly tarred by the growing number of highly publicised bloodbaths perpetrated by fellow believers.

But on Saturday some prominent Arabs had a more sobering interpretation: corrupt, repressed Arab and Islamic societies have turned into breeding grounds for terrorism. It is a judgement rarely voiced in heavily censored Arab rhetoric.

"Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims," wrote Abdulrahman al-Rashed, general manager of the Al-Arabiya TV channel.

In a blunt column in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, he listed attacks carried out by Muslims in Iraq, Russia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. "Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture," he wrote. "The picture is humiliating, painful and harsh for all of us."***


Posted By: ringmir Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 01:05 PM
On the marriage licenses thing...I completely 100% agree. The government has no place issuing "marriage" licenses at all. Let every union be a "civil union" in the eyes of the Gov, and afford the same social privledges under a civil union to the two people involved regardless of race, gender, etc. Then if they want to be married in the eyes of thier respective religious power(s) so be it. That's a seperate issue.

Oh and while they're at it, get the words "under god" out of the pledge. That's a big crock of $hit. I always used to get in trouble for saying "AMEN" loudly after the pledge when they made us recite it... I have no problem pledging allegiance to the flag and thus to this country. I do have a problem claiming that this is "one nation under god." It isn't.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 05:49 PM
The main reason references to God should be stricken from all things government-related is that they were added so recently. "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. "In God We Trust" was placed on currency in 1955. In 1956, "In God We Trust" replaced E Pluribus Unum as the national motto. And ALL of it was done in an effort to "fluff ourselves up" and differentiate us from those heathen atheist commies in Russia.

Pathetic.
Posted By: Riffman National Guard Memos - 09/10/04 05:56 PM
If I can inject another issue here, what does everyone think of the memos? Will it affect Bush adversely?

Also, I have seen some talk and mention of polls here. My opinion is that polls are only valid when looking at the parsed data for specific, battleground states given our electoral college method of electing presidents.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 06:00 PM
Yes, PMB, you are absolutely correct ... but why stop with offensive references on our currency, and the off key proclamations of school children ... I wait with anticipation your important work, for example, your expected efforts to remove offending references to the Eternal One from the Declaration of Independence ...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 06:06 PM
"Creator" is much more ambiguous and open to interpretation. It is much more culturally and spiritually neutral, so I've got no problem with it.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: National Guard Memos - 09/10/04 06:08 PM
Are you talking about the memo I'm including below? If so, I'm not sure its authenticity has been verified. Come to think of it, it sounds extrememly contrived and fake.


"REHNQUIST MEMORANDUM" ON BUSH

From: W.R.
Absolutely CONFIDENTIAL

I'll bet you never thought you'd hear this from me, but G.W. Bush has got to be defeated in November.

Yes, I know, I'm a diehard conservative and was part of the majority that greased his way into the White House. But we had no idea the damage this guy and his friends would do in just four years, and how far they are willing to go in amassing total power and control into their hands.

Most pertinent to us on the court is what he has done to the judiciary. In effect, he has told us we're irrelevant. Whenever he wants something badly enough, he bends the Constitution, ignores the Separation-of-Powers established so brilliantly by the Founding Fathers, and simply finds a way for the President to do whatever he and his friends decide they want to do. (For example, GOP extremists in the House have introduced bills that would set the precedent of totally abolishing judicial review.)

Take the torture scandal, which is connected to the post-9/11 Patriot Act. Bush and Ashcroft had lawyers at the White House, Justice and Pentagon draft memoranda that, they claimed, permitted the President to do anything whatsoever under his role as commander-in-chief during wartime. Since Bush has declared that we are in a state of war and that he's a "war president," it then follows that whatever action the President takes, under this claim of acting as "commander-in-chief" in "wartime," must be permitted to stand as legal orders of the Executive.

Under this claim, the President can authorize "harsh interrogation methods" -- a euphemism for torture -- and the "disappearing" of various citizens and foreigners into secret jails, out of the reach of juridical oversight. Bush officials, apparently adopting these legal strategems as policy, have done both, and they really thought they would get away with it.

They are sorely mistaken. I and most of my colleagues on the bench do not appreciate it when the concept of judicial review, first established two hundred years ago with John Marshall and Marbury v. Madison, is dismissed by the Executive Branch as an outdated constitutional frill. Terrorism or no terrorism, this is still a society where no man, not even the President, is above the law -- not even if he wraps his grab for power in the name of "anti-terrorism."

We tried to get the message to him recently in the Hamdi and Guantanamo cases, where we said, in no uncertain terms, that while the President assumes, and should have, wide latitude during wartime, this special consideration was not a blanket right to unfettered behavior. Justice O'Connor wrote that the court has ''made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." And Justice Scalia wrote: "The very core of our liberty has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive."

In short, we sent Bush a very strong message. Which he and his advisers seemed to agree to, only to try to go around the import of the Court's rulings, by testing the limits of what they could get away with -- the way they're delaying our orders on the Guantanamo detainees, for example, and the way military tribunals are organized that makes them little more than show trials.

PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS/DICTATORS

Richard Nixon tried to hide his crimes by claiming that any action taken by a President cannot, by the very fact that he is Chief Executive, be illegal -- but he learned quickly enough, when the Court rejected this extreme claim, that the Executive and Legislative Branches are always and forever subject to the Constitution, as interpreted by the Judicial Branch.

Now we learn that Bush's White House lawyers are asserting even more outrageous claims to power. Even though the Constitution grants the States power in determining and running their own election rules -- well, OK, we violated our own principles, but without setting precedent, in Bush v. Gore -- the Bush Administration claims that is has the power to cancel or postpone a general election (presumably when it appears it would lose) in the face of perceived "terrorist" threats. And, worse still, that it could partially cancel or postpone an election in certain states (presumably in states it would have lost) and be declared the winner based on a partial vote (presumably from states it would have won).

There is no way we could, or would, let that happen. If Bush and his cronies persist in creating a constitutional crisis, they will get one -- and not one they will find agreeable. Even the military may refuse to follow Bush's dictatorial orders.

In short, I'm writing this memo and circulating it (on a CONFIDENTIAL basis) to you and other key Republican business and governmental leaders because it's plain now, as it wasn't in 2000, that Bush and his crowd are inimicable to our best financial and political interests -- and the interest of the American people in general -- and must be stopped here and now before they can do even more damage.

This crew appears to be so power-hungry, and so incompetent in carrying out their radical programs, that only disaster will result if they gain a second term. If you agree with my prognosis, I urge you to move quickly to do whatever you can, and use whatever influence and funds you must, to ensure that Bush goes down to defeat on November 2.

KERRY IS NO DANGER TO US

Kerry ordinarily would not be our choice, but, if elected, he will be pretty much a toothless tiger, struggling so hard to undo the worst damage done by his predecessor, that he'll have little time or energy to devote to liberal mischief.

In the four years of a Kerry administration, we can regather our forces and select someone less obvious and more competent to run against him in 2008, re-asserting true conservative dominance in the years to come.

But unless we get rid of this crass, arrogant, reckless Bush crowd -- by a landslide defeat, so as to obviate any late "surprises" Karl Rove may have up his sleeve -- we, and the country, are in for a hellacious administration run amok with its ruthless power. Please let me know your thoughts, by courier delivery only. Thank you.



Posted By: ringmir Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 06:30 PM
The reference to "their Creator" in the declaration is an example of extremely well chosen wording. A creator can be someone's parental unit, it can be a god, or a pantheon of gods. "In God we Trust" is an example of extremely poorly chosen wording. If I tell you "I swear to God, I will do it." you would be a fool to believe me, because I don't believe in God. I don't trust in God to help me, I don't think God has any bearing at all on how my life progresses, or where I end up after it. I don't believe in the Christian God, or any other godlike figure(s). I am also not alone in this country in my belief, and it is ignorant of those in this country who do believe to make an officially endorsed statement that this country "trusts" or operates "under" *ANY* god, let alone the one specific capital-G God. Even if one firmly believes that I am a sinner for my lack of faith, and that I will go to hell for it, one should still be able to recognize that in this country I have the right to believe what I choose when it comes to religion, and the government should not take a position.

Would you be opposed to our currency saying "In Allah we Trust"? What about "In Vishnu we Trust" or "In Ra we Trust"? It just sounds ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. The more reasonable "In Science we Trust" is still pretty ridiculous. Now if the currency said "In Equality we Trust" I would be fine with that. Heck maybe even "In Righteousness we Trust."

Now then finally, "E pluribus unum" is another example of an outstanding choice of wording. That is what our country's sole motto should be. Consequently, I think it was kept as a motto and "In God we Trust" was added as an *additional* motto.
Posted By: Riffman Re: National Guard Memos - 09/10/04 06:39 PM
I was referring to the piece that aired on CBS' 60 Minutes two nights ago. They had memos from Bush's superiors in the National Guard that indicated Bush received special treatment and skipped duties. CBS is standing by their story and said the memos are authentic as judged by their expert while three of the US' top experts believe the memo's are fake. CBS will not release the name of its expert. I wonder what the impact will be. I imagine that given the divided electorate, the story won't be a big deal.

Re the Rehnquist memo, that obviously has to be a fake. I am under the impression Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be devoid of any 'politiking'.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 08:47 PM
Actually, Jefferson also used the word "God" in the preamble to the Dec of Ind. Not that it matters.

Text of the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

It seems like forbidding prayer in schools or otherwise restricting religous practices through an act of Congress, could be construed as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Just how you look at it I guess.




Posted By: Riffman Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 09:17 PM
I've read a lot of this thread and have found it interesting. I have a few questions:

pmbuko: you spoke of a need to truly understand why Islamic fanaticism is directed at westerners and at the US, in particular. And that if we understand properly, we can then start to make peace with the Islamists. What are those reasons for the rise of militant/terror Islam? My opinion on the situation is rather simple: small groups of fanatics seek to manipulate power and politics around the world by using terrorism. It simply doesn't matter if their reasons are right and just. Their world is a world of anarchy and there must be negative consequences to terror acts around the world. There must never be positive consequences to terror. What those people did in Spain with their vote can only further the anarchist method of power attainment which is: terror.

The Chechens might have a legitimate gripe due to many years of Stalinist oppression and their ethinic authenticity/homogeneity but they should never be rewarded with their own state because their methods. I have never been more disappointed the US government than when I saw our position and comments after Beslan (our call for a diplomatic solution). Bush doesn't understand terror and Kerry understands it even less. Spain and France understand even less (France's pleas to save their journalists because they didn't support the war proves how clueless they are).

spiff: I thought the cycle of violence emerged once again when Arafat started the second Intifada after he refused the settlement proposed by Clinton/Barak? Am I wrong? If so, how?

Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 09:17 PM
Really, PMB, I am disappointed. I didn't expect you to split hairs - you either deny any place in public life to the Eternal One or not.

You all may recall the recent case in Iran where the judge (a mullah) sentenced a 16 year old girl to death - she had been raped, and dissed the court with her "sharp tongue." You all will be very relieved to learn that the European-Iranian Human Rights Dialog Commission prevailed upon the Iranians to amend its sentence of death. The Iranian court had sentenced the girl to be executed by stoning. After the Europeans intervened, her sentenced was reduced to hanging. She was hanged from a crane in the center of town.

Now, PMB, let's hear you decry the central status of religion, Islam, in the Islamic Republic of Iran - or perhaps you would equate that unity of religion and civil law with the inclusion of the words "Under God" on our currency and in our children's morning pledge of allegiance.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/10/04 10:48 PM
In reply to:

Really, PMB, I am disappointed. I didn't expect you to split hairs - you either deny any place in public life to the Eternal One or not.


Splitting hairs?? Ringmir said what I should have said here:

"The reference to "their Creator" in the declaration is an example of extremely well chosen wording. A creator can be someone's parental unit, it can be a god, or a pantheon of gods."

Don't tell me I'm splitting hairs. This is not an all or nothing subject.

As far as the central status of Islam in Middle Eastern countries is concerned, of course I don't equate the inclusion of God in the U.S. with complete non-separation of religion and state in Iran. Religion/faith is completely meaningless unless it is voluntary. The alternative of enforced religion produces robots who understand the words on which the laws are based, but not the message of the text itself.

My desire to strike the existence of "Under God" and "In God We Trust" from pledge and currenty has more to do with them being added with such ridiculous justifications.

And while we're speaking about the pledge, boiled down to its essence it is a pledge of allegiance to the flag and to the USA, nothing else. The Under God part is just a tacked-on prepositional phrase, so I don't feel imposed upon that it's there. That wasn't my objection in the first place.
Posted By: ringmir church and state - 09/10/04 11:26 PM
2x6, is this Iran? No, clearly it isn't. I don't see how mentioning that story makes any point against the separation of church and state. The point here is very simple: The government of this country has a commitment to not intermix religion and politics. The presence of those phrases on our currency and in our pledge clearly violate that. I notice nobody went near my hypothetical "In Science we Trust." I don't need to ask why nobody went near it, it's clearly a stupid suggestion. What makes the phrase "In God we Trust" any different? To me it sounds as stupid as "In Science we Trust" and I, personally, trust in Science. Do people not comment on it because perhaps they trust in God? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that if they do, but it is niether my place nor the government's place to be concerned about it. I personally have no problem with our children saying the pledge of alleigance in school, as long as no part of that pledge relates to God. What if I were extremely religious, let's say an American Muslim. Would I like it if my children had to say that pledge every day? What if they were forced to recite the Creed, or the Lord's Prayer? I'd be pretty f'n pi$$ed about it I think. And with good reason, they should not be forced to pledge to any higher power that they do not believe in.

This is not even a remotely cloudy issue, there is no fuzzy line, nobody glasses should be fogged up. Separation of Church and State. End of story.

Edit: I should add perhaps... It is perfectly fine, in deed I would expect, that the government acknowledge the presence of religion in this country. I have no problem with that. What is not fine is for the government to publicly endorse any religion, in any way. And that is what both of these phrases do.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Just because I'm a pacifist - 09/10/04 11:48 PM
Sorry for responding to something this far back, but I have just now come back to see responses to my post.

BigJohn & Jorge - What I find amusing is how people with their own agendas maintain close minds and do not consider all points of view before dismissing them as Partisan.

Fellow members had put something out there as fact, so I posted a link to someone's analysis that made a very solid case for why those assertions were ill-informed. Rather than say "hmmm...I've used this argument before, but it may not be entirely correct. Perhaps I should do some research for myself to make sure that the points that I am making are valid." (yes, I know that you guys didn't make the assertions), what you guys do is take the easy route and simply write off what you have read as partisan bunk.

This is no longer directed at you two guys.....I've said it before that I used to be your garden-variety bleeding heart making arguments based upon sound-byte statements/positions of others. That changed in time as I began to realize that I couldn't maintain those arguments when faced with someone who had facts to support their positions. After this rude awakening, I began to hold back on arguments until I had actual facts to back up my positions. In the process of doing this, I began to realize that my original positions didn't in fact have sound factual backing to support them. I had bit hook line and sinker on someone's line of BS and then in turn propogated that message. In then end, the biggest lesson I learned is not that the Left or Right are full of crap (though they are )....it's that one should always question any and all assertions made by others. As in science, no conclusion should be accepted as truth until it has going through the necessary scrutiny/peer-review. This is an understanding that a large segment of our society is lacking. Our politicians are fully aware of this fact and use it regularly to disperse misinformation and distortions.

Is Michael Moore allowed to do the same?....of course. But, when people make a concerted effort to clarify his disceptive and unfounded assertions, you should be spend less time attacking them for doing so and focus more on the fact that you perhaps bought into those disceptions and then consider how you can avoid being deceived in the future.
Posted By: BigWill Re: church and state - 09/11/04 12:01 AM
"This is not even a remotely cloudy issue, there is no fuzzy line, nobody glasses should be fogged up. Separation of Church and State. End of story."

Well, as you can see above the Constitution does not use the phrase "separation of church and state". That phrase is contained in a lower court ruling, I believe (didn't somebody link us to that info a while back?). How one interprets the Constitution is always debatable.

I'm not sure when I became less threatened by all the religion around us. I used to get all worked up about bumper stickers, the pledge of allegiance, etc... Doesn't really bother me anymore. I do roll my eyes frequently, though.

IMO, those who proclaim their faith the loudest have the least faith in their convictions. Prosteltyzing (sp?), and participating in organized religion, reaffirms one's own faith, but is likely not actually motivated by the need to recruit more believers. It seems to be that the weaker your faith the more affirmation you need.

Regardless, I believe that many, many, many people have come to the conclusion that there is no god. They either recoil from that realization and all that it entails, seeking solace in their former faith (hence the need to practice religion); or they tackle the angst of a godless existence (no easy task); or they try to forget the whole subject.
Some random questions:

Maybe you guys that are offended by religous references are in that last category? Are you really going to tell your small children something different from what all the other kids are hearing? What are the psychological effects on children raised in atheist housholds in predominately religous communities? What are the psychological effects on children raised with atheism, period? Can a 5 year old deal with the notion that there is no greater meaning to his existence? a 12 year old? 18 yr old?

Hope I don't sound like I'm preaching.
Posted By: ringmir Re: church and state - 09/11/04 12:30 AM
BigWill, let me clear up a few things about my position on this.

I don't go through life angst ridden about the fact that the pledge contains "under God." In fact I say it when I recite the pledge, and kinda chuckle to myself that it's stupid. I also don't scribble over "In God we Trust" on every piece of currency that passes through my hands. In fact I am generally blind to it even being there. So, don't get the impression that it bothers me significantly, because it doesn't. What does bother me is when that issue reaches the supreme court and they refuse to hear the case. The way I see it, they should just resolve it and go on. It shouldn't be an issue. The official report regarding it should say something like "HA! how did that get there...yeah take that off."

My kids will be free to follow any religion they want. I will not tell them there is no greater power. I will tell them what I believe, and objectively inform them about any religion they want to know about to the best of my ability. If they truly believe in some religion, then I will support that belief. My father was a Greek Orthodox priest, I was an altar boy for years, I went to church camp. My mother was a Quaker (they are divorced), and I went to Quaker meeting with her. I had religion classes in a private school where they objectively discussed many world religions, and the associated beliefs. I went out with the daughter of a protestant minister for two years. I went out with an American Indian girl for three years. My current girlfriend is a Bangladeshi from a Muslim family. I've studied the ancient Greeks in detail.

After a while, I pretty much decided that none of it was for me. I liked math, chemistry, and the theory of evolution. I am perfectly content with my position on religion. I don't need or try to convince people I am correct, I don't even believe I am "correct" except "correct for myself." I know that it is not my place to question someone's religious beliefs, however radical they may be. Each individual has the right to believe whatever they choose. Acting upon those beliefs is a different story of course, but holding them is an inalienable human right.

A person's religion or associated beliefs are a personal aspect of who they are. It is a mistake for the government to assume they can state "In God *we* Trust" where "we" is clearly refering to Americans as a whole. I don't understand how anyone can disagree with this. Is there anyone who can provide a solid argument for why this slogan *should* be on our currency? Please fill me in if so!
Posted By: ringmir Re: church and state - 09/11/04 12:53 AM
And BigWill, this is Amendment I on the Bill of rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Emphasis here should be drawn to "no law respecting an establishment of religion." The statement "In God we Trust" is blantantly with respect to a particular establishment of religion. And if you choose to read it differently, "In God we Trust" establishes a particular religion to be the one that Americans believe.

This link is a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he states his interpretation of that first amendment to be there should be "a wall of separation between church and state." Note that when he says "religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god" he uses the lowercase, and this does reflect his exact spelling and punctuation.
Posted By: BigWill Re: church and state - 09/11/04 12:54 AM
LOL My extended family is devout Missionary Baptist. Hellfire, spartan churches, no fun at all.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 02:26 AM
In reply to:

"It follows that a necessary condition for fundamental rights is a distinction between what the government -- in the wide sense of the term -- says is so and what is true. That is, in order for me to understand that I have fundamental rights, it must be possible for me to have the following thought: that even though everyone else in my community thinks that, for example, same-sex marriages should be outlawed, people of the same sex still have a right to be married.




So, we could extrapolate that even though everyone else in my community thinks that drunk people peeing on on other peoples' front lawns while walking home from the bar at 2AM should be outlawed, drunk people still have the right to relieve themselves anywhere they can.

OR

Even though everyone else in my community thinks that people breaking into other people's homes to steal for food, or anything else, poor people still have the right to some of the "public wealth".

OR

Even though everyone else in my community thinks that car jacking is wrong, poeple who don't have cars deserve to ride in one once in a while.

The author is simply trying to blur the distinction between right and wrong. He obviously feels that society is doomed to continue degrading at it's current rate, and is trying to justify why we shouldn't make any attempts to correct it. It's a clear case of fear of success.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 03:12 AM
Michael,

I think that the one thing that you are missing is that all of the things that you referenced involve actions that infringe on the rights of others. This is not the case with gay marriage.

I think that this is a line that the majority of people in the conservative side of these issues don't understand. The point of government is to secure our borders, guarantee our freedom, and to defend our personal liberties. When someone endangers our personal liberties, government and the law are there to defend us. However, the government is not there to infringe on our personal liberties because the majority disagrees with our actions. This is a simple core concept of our democracy that the bulk of our society doesn't get.....otherwise, there would be a thriving Libertarian party.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/12/04 03:13 AM
In reply to:

Help establish a nation for the Palestinians, and Pack up and get the hell out of the Middle East?


Palestine is NOT where Israel as we know it today, is. They really belong somewhere in (or mostly in) Jordan. Their beloved Arab bretheren said, "No way Habib. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." So now they wander around looking for a homeland. Guess what they can't do? Attack another Arab nation. Hmmm... That leaves just one target for them, Israel.

If you think Iraq was a bad idea, are missing one thing. Saddam was the sole military "power" in the region that prevented the Israelis from actually defending themselves. He was the hammer waiting to drop on them if they stepped over the line. The result was a stalemate, a constant string of bombings and retaliations.

The removal of Saddam simply cleared the way for a little payback.

Ask yourself just one question. Is there any doubt that if the suicide bombings were to stop, that Israel would also cease military operations? No. You'd have peace. The Arabs need to straighten up, and help locate the Palestinians locate themselves where they really belong, and leave Israel alone.

Until then. Israel has only one option. Peace through superior firepower. It works. Cold war?
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Just because I'm a warmonger - 09/12/04 03:31 AM
In reply to:

I'm genuinely curious to hear that you think.




"Ilias Akhmadov, foreign minister in the self-styled but unrecognized government of Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov, said that he was informed this week that he has been officially granted political asylum by authorities in Boston."

OK. #1. - "authorities in Boston" - enough said - look at the other crud coming out of Massachusettes.

#2 - Nowhere does it say that President Bush ever weighed in on the matter. For all we know, the Russians never got past the State Department. I guess it depends on who in Moscow called...
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 06:22 AM
Michael, your extrapolations don't work at all. Peeing on someone else's property, breaking and entering, and car jacking all violate the rights of others. Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else's rights (beat me to it, Turbodog). And frankly, comparing gay marriage to such criminal activities as car jacking and breaking and entering is more than a little offensive.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 12:01 PM
Definition of marriage: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." This is from the American Heritage Dictionary. The same dictionary may also be forced to add: " A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same sex marriage". This can be looked up, and American Dictionary just reacts to what they are "told" things mean. For those who are not paying attention, I will be blunt. "THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TODAY THAT INCLUDES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE... PERIOD".

The irony, to me, is marriage was always a religious-based institution from which governments (recently, in the overall scheme of things) decided THEY should profit. So they started Charging a fee to issue marriage licenses.

To all those demanding a separation of church and state, the government has no business being NEAR marriage. But, the government IS involved in marriage as a profitable business.

AdamP88, I agree that comparing Gay Marriage to Car Jacking is not a "fair" comparison. But I disagree with the assertion that it will not affect other's rights.

For example, as a business owner, I provide, to the spouse/children of employees, health insurance. Under the concept of Gay Marriage, I would be forced, by law, to pay for "His Husband's" health insurance. Note the word FORCED, that is an infringement on my rights TO RUN MY BUSINESS. And anyone will be able, under gay marriage, to head to the local magistrate, get married, and show up at my door with a demand that I add his "new husband" to "his" benefits package.

Should my state adopt "same sex" marriage, I would immediately eliminate all employee benefit programs. Not because I have a problem with the so called "gay lifestyle", but because I know what the outcome would be: I, and many other small business owners, would be placed in a position of paying for more scams than you can imagine.

The cost to the Social Security system would be enormous, as surviving SPOUSES receive benefits based on the earnings of the deceased spouse. There are other examples... but enough for now.

NOW ... Let us look at the current laws which DO affect my rights...

An employer can be sued for firing someone. It is called discrimination, but there is no "right" to have a job, so nobody's "rights" were eliminated. Since someone else was hired to take the fired person's place, the net effect on society is NIL... SO, based on the assertion that my hiring decisions do NOT infringe on anybody's "rights", There should be NO discrimination laws in the US.

I know several have already agreed with this, but for a reminder, drug use and prostitution should be legal. And ALL drug use, not just "naturally grown" drugs... afterall, noone's "rights" are being eliminated here, either, by someone smoking "crack"

Public Nudity laws also have to go... while peeing on property is trespassing, walking the streets naked is not.

If we are going to base legal decisions on "whether or not something infringes on someone else's rights" ... there will be a LOT of laws tossed out.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 03:21 PM
craigsub, you are very frequently correct about a good many things - and it is true that recognizing gay marriages or gay civil unions would drive costs up for businesses - but I don't think there would be any more scams than there are now. Are you suggesting that all the single guys you employ are going to "marry" their buddies to get them benefits? LOL

If the gov't stopped issuing marriage licenses and left that to the churches, then any church that married same sex couples would immediately be put in one category by the public, and those that deny same sex marriages in another category. The illegitimate churches would certainly feel some fallout from the public.

I personally don't care where anyone wants to stick their pecker, and I have no opposition to the civil union concept or in leaving the decision to individual churches, but it seems silly for gay Christians to want "holy matrimony" when the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality (just judging by all the Biblical citations I see in the paper, haven't actually read much of the book myself ).
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 03:37 PM
BigWill... Based on what I have seen in worker's comp cases, the answer is a resounding YES ... there would be a lot of people, (men and women) who would use this new law to gain financially. I just got done fighting (and winning) a worker's comp claim from an employee who was hurt on his motorcycle, and tried to scam that he was actually hurt on the job... and there are thousands of investigators across the country who have to work diligently to prevent fraud. Anyone who does NOT think these laws would be abused is extremely naive.

As far as "religion-only" marriages, if the government was not in the marriage license business, there would BE no controversy. It the "Lower East Side Baptist Church" wants to marry two guys in a church ceremony, they can do that today. The difference is this: When the government starts saying that gays (and those claiming to be gay) can marry and automatically receive all the benefits of a spouse, watch out... right now that "Lower East Side Church" marriage carries no weight financially, these new laws change all that.

As far as the Bible goes, yes, it condemns ALL sex outside marriage, and also states marrieage IS between a man and a woman. For clarity though, the Bible is just as tough on someone cheating on a spouse as it is someone practicing gay sex. Note, I am not making a religious statement here, just pointing out what is actually in print.

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 04:22 PM
Craig - Like BigWill, I have to agree that you make many good points. However, on this issue, I think that you are pretty far off base.

First of all, your original argument boils down to the standard conservative bible in one hand and dictionary on the other rhetoric. To really have this dialog, you have to toss the former out of the argument, because we are talking about legal rights, which are not subject to religious influence (supposedly). The latter, as you have said, only states what is appropriate for the times. I'm pretty sure that earlier dictionaries had racist and anti-semitic definitions, which have been pruned and/or modified over time as we have evolved. So, now that we have pruned out those two components of the argument, we are left with the law (ie government). After all, we are talking about rights to be upheld and protected by the rule of law and government. In this context, are you suggesting that this legal union in the eyes of the law (not the church) should be granted to one group and not another? Are you suggesting that it is ok for the US government to discriminate against segments of the society that it is sworn to protect?

In the end, you are using arguments that were used to oppress and discriminate against both women and blacks in the past. Should blacks be allowed to get married?....it costs us more if they do. Should women be allowed to work?....it dillutes the potential wealth for us men. Bigots and sexists throughout history have used these arguments to support their fight to oppress others. It's nothing but fear-based hatred and ignorance.

Will it cost us more if gays are allowed to get married?....potentially. SO WHAT!!! It's their right that has been denied for so long by all the religous quacks out there. Plus, this may be a stereotype, but I've found that gay men and women tend to make a good living for themselves, so I think they've put enough into the pot to deserve something back.

As to your abuse argument, I don't buy it. Think about what an utter pain in the a$$ it is to get a divorce in our society. We are talking about a legally binding commitment here.....a marriage/union. Regardless of what you call it, I don't think that the average person will step into the legal quagmire associated w/ marriage just to get some extra benefits.

This is not directed at Craig.....I have to say that I have never yet heard one sound argument against gay marriage, yet I think we have a long way to go before we break down that barrier. It's a sad reflection on our society.
Posted By: ringmir Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 04:30 PM
Since I was just commenting on separation of church and state, I think I should say (although I thought I already had...):

The Government should not deal in marriage at all. It should recognize civil unions, and they should be permissible between any two individuals. Marriage should be something recognized by the church alone, and should have no legal bearing or weight whatsoever. In fact a man connected in a civil union with another man should be allowed to get married under whatever religion to some woman. This would solve legal marriage issues with polygamy, homosexuality, etc.

Craigsub, I completely understand your position regarding a corporation then having to deal with extension of medical benefits. I find it hard to believe however, that straight men would enter into civil unions with other men just to offer them the umbrella of benefits. Let me qualify this, I don't think that is any more likely to occur than for a straight man to enter into a civil union with a woman to offer her the umbrella of benefits. Certainly marriages of convenience like this do occur under the current system. But it's unlikely (and I know "unlikely" is a fuzzy word) that the problem will become significantly worse if the government adopted this new policy. And what it will permit, is for a homosexual couple raising a family to have equal standing in society as a hetero couple.

One side effect that I would expect to see is that the adoption rate would increase. If the government permits the union of homosexuals with equal rights as heterosexuals, those unions may be more likely to adopt children so they can have a family. I know that a large portion of the hetero world, myself included, can't fully understand how it would be to be raised in a household like that. But it is still a perfectly viable household, with the same day to day concerns and expenses that any hetero household would have. Why should such a household be punished by unequal medical benefits or tax considerations?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 05:08 PM
Turbo Dog... When has it been illegal for blacks to marry ? Even under slavery they were allowed to marry, though a slave owner could also sell off either a husband or a wife... which was abhorent, for sure... My family fought in the Union Army in the Civil War to end abuses like this.

Then.... We throw out the Biblical standard of marriage, which I already did in MY statement, you just seemed to either miss or ignore that part.... and discuss only the government sanctioned marriage. I WAS doing that... discussing ONLY the government sanctioned part... Do you get that now ?

Next... you throw all the usual BS insults... hatred, bigotry, THEN say it was not about ME ... well, what you posted was in response to me... so I take complete offense to your ridiculous assertion that my stance against gay marriage is akin to keeping women from working, blacks being allowed to marry, or anything of these other nonsense items. I loathe that type of behavior, and when hiring someone, could not care less about skin color, gender, OR sexuality.

You have not heard a sound argument because you don't WANT to hear any argument... In Today's America, two people have the complete right live together, marry in any church they want, and there is no discrimination about it. That includes gay marriage.

There is nothing anyone can say that WILL sway your position. You don't think people will try to take advantage of the situation. Well, average people WON'T ... But there is a large group of people who WILL ... here are the benefits to someone getting (by government sanction) married...

1. Surviving spouses pay ZERO inheritance tax.
2. Surviving spouses get Social Security.
3. They get retirement benefits from corporations, which are paid for buy the corporation's customers, as all expenses are.

The three largest pools of money in this country are listed above.

So, a question for you.. Can you tell if someone is gay by looking at him or her ?


Posted By: dmn23 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 05:32 PM
In reply to:

For example, as a business owner, I provide, to the spouse/children of employees, health insurance. Under the concept of Gay Marriage, I would be forced, by law, to pay for "His Husband's" health insurance. Note the word FORCED, that is an infringement on my rights TO RUN MY BUSINESS. And anyone will be able, under gay marriage, to head to the local magistrate, get married, and show up at my door with a demand that I add his "new husband" to "his" benefits package.




Okay, I'm chiming in here because I'm genuinely confused - NOT because I want to create bad blood or stir up a $hit storm. Craig, you're already providing these benefits to your heterosexual employees who are married. Forget about the logic behind what currently qualifies as legal discrimination (I happen to agree with you, BTW) -- right now, if you elect to provide benefits for your married employees, you don't have the option to pick and choose who receives these benefits. How would this scenario be any different if, all of a sudden, all of your employees were married heterosexuals?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 05:58 PM
In reply to:

There is nothing anyone can say that WILL sway your position. You don't think people will try to take advantage of the situation. Well, average people WON'T ... But there is a large group of people who WILL ... here are the benefits to someone getting (by government sanction) married...

1. Surviving spouses pay ZERO inheritance tax.
2. Surviving spouses get Social Security.
3. They get retirement benefits from corporations, which are paid for buy the corporation's customers, as all expenses are.


So you would deny these rights to honest people living in committed homosexual relationships simply because SOME individuals posing as gays would take advantage of it?

If that is your reasoning, then NOBODY should be able to get married, because sham weddings are already common. And while we're at it, we should cancel all insurance policies because some people commit insurance fraud.

There's really no differrence in logic between these preposterous propositions and your current stance. You DO NOT deny people rights simply bcause some people will abuse those rights.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 07:35 PM
dmn23 - It is precisely because I am being told that yet another group could FORCE me to "pay up" ...
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 07:42 PM
PM- First, They are NOT rights. They are laws on the books. Rights are conveyed in the constitution...

And ALL you guys are TOTALLY Missing where I am TRYING to go. YOU think another law will somehow fix this situation.

I know this is yet another question that will not be answered... but I will try again, and PM - This is for you...

Would you like to see a system where EVERYONE was treated the same, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender... Yes, or No ?
Posted By: BigWill Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 07:48 PM
"I have to say that I have never yet heard one sound argument against gay marriage..."

To me the phrase "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. We all seem to agree that marriage is a religous institution. This particular religion, and all the others that I am aware of, forbids the behavior. To have a gay marriage in a church would be the same as having a ceremony where a pair of adulterers are officially pronounced "man and mistress" by the church. To ask a church to sanctify sin with a holy ceremony seems pretty bizarre to me.

Of course gay civil unions will have some costs in the form of lost tax revenues and increased partner benefits, but that does not seem like valid reasons to deprive gay couples of equal legal standing. Given that about 10% (?) of the country has decided to be gay it seems to me they deserve equal protection under the law.

BTW, craigsub, you shouldn't be so sensitive to perceived personal attacks - your earlier post basically called me "naive". I interpret that as a nicer way of saying "stupid", but whatever.
Best advice my Dad ever gave me was, "Son, don't be sensitive. Men shouldn't be sensitive. Women are sensitive."
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 07:58 PM
Bigwill, There is a HUGE difference between saying "Anyone ... is naive" and being directly told you are "fear-based hatred and ignorance"

Taking offense to being told I am full of hatred is not due to being sensitive...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 08:10 PM
In reply to:

Would you like to see a system where EVERYONE was treated the same, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender... Yes, or No ?


I'll answer that. Yes, I would like to see a system where EVERYONE is treated the same, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, and (I'm adding this one) income level.

I never advocated FOR a law granting same sex marriage. I want the gov't to amend its books so it is completely gender/orientation neutral. If that means widening the current definition of marriage OR replacing the term marriage with civil union, I'm all for it.

My previous post was a reaction to your prediction that allowing sam-sex marriages/unions would be the downfall of small business owners. Your logic relies on a reductionist fallacy -- attributing the behavior of individuals upon an entire group.

The idea that it is not a right for ANY two consenting adults to enter into an relationship that affords them the same rights as two different adults is at the heart of this matter.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 08:34 PM
PM .. I could write a 100,000 word essay about laws passed that hurt ALL business... but since you answered the question... let us examine freedom... and what real freedom means. We ALL want the best for everyone, and would like to see people get a better life. Here are some ideas to achieve this better life, and we will use benefits to the gay community for an example.

1. Complete eliminate the Estate Tax, which would allow ANYONE to accumulate moneys, and leave said money to the person of his/her choice, not the government.

2. Totally privatize Social Security (or at least allow those who want to to have the CHOICE to put funds into his/her own account). Let those who are on Social Security keep THEIR accumulated moneys. The typical 30 year old gay man would have a couple million dollars which could be left to anyone. More freedom of choice.

2. Establish a Flat Tax, with a generous deduction for families, or heads of households, whether filing separately or jointly... the responsible plans are revenue neutral, close all the loopholes, and allow the lower 50% of the populace to pay no taxes. Under this program, two $100,000 per year gay men living together would get the same deductions as a married couple.

4. Expand "cafeteria" style health plans in the work place. These allow employees to choose whether he/she wants to us a plan. For example, one may choose to use the $4000/year medical savings account, with a basic policy that covers medical costs anuually with, say, a $10,000 deductible. Over years most people actually make money in these plans... and they KEEP the surplus, so, the gay couple could build additional assets to leave to each other... remember the no inheritance tax ?

This is a start...
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 09:42 PM
Fellas, gals, you've got to admit that this country's debate about same-sex marriages is pretty civil, though some feathers obviously get ruffled. I'd like to recall September 11 with you all, in connection with this subject. The civil and legal protections our society affords to homosexuals is one of the reasons Islamic Jihadists believe they have a divine right to destroy us.

In reply to:

“This sin, the impact of which makes one’s skin crawl, which words cannot describe, is evidence of perverted instincts, total collapse of shame and honor, and extreme filthiness of character and soul… The heavens, the Earth and the mountains tremble from the impact of this sin. The angels shudder as they anticipate the punishment of Allah to descend upon the people who commit this indescribable sin.” (1)

There are many sins in Islam that may fit this description, from idolatry, atheism, and apostasy, to drunkenness, adultery, and questioning the divine origin of the Koran. In this particular instance it refers to homosexuality, for which a death sentence remains on the statute books and is enforced in several Islamic countries.

In Saudi Arabia on April 16, 2001, five homosexuals were sentenced to 2,600 lashes and 6 years in prison, and four others to 2,400 lashes and 5 years’ imprisonment for “deviant sexual behavior.” Amnesty International subsequently reported that six men were executed on charges of deviant sexual behavior, some of which were related to their sexual orientation, but it was uncertain whether the six men who were executed were among the nine who were sentenced to flogging and imprisonment in April (2).

It is difficult to establish precisely the number of homosexuals that have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution in 1979, since not all sentences are widely publicized, but estimates range from several hundred to 4,000 (3). According to Amnesty International, at least three homosexual men and two lesbians were publicly beheaded in January 1990. The Islamic Penal Law Against Homosexuals, approved in July 1991 and ratified in November of that year, is simple. Article 110: “Punishment for sodomy is killing; the Sharia judge decides on how to carry out the killing.” Article 129: “Punishment for lesbianism is one hundred (100) lashes for each party.” Article 131: “If the act of lesbianism is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will be issued the fourth time.”

While the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, it regularly executed homosexuals. Islamic jurists in Kabul and Kandahar only differed on the method of killing. One group of scholars believed the condemned should be taken to the top of the highest building in the city and hurled to their deaths, while others advocated placing them in a pit next to a wall which was to be toppled on them, so that they are buried alive. Both methods were solidly grounded in authoritative tradition, and both were applied. At least five men convicted of sodomy by Afghanistan’s sharia courts had been “placed next to walls by Taliban officials and then buried under the rubble as the walls were toppled upon them.” In one such incident, three homosexuals were punished thus while Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar watched along with thousands of spectators. After the 30-minute waiting period, the three men were still alive, but two died the next day. What became of the third is unknown




Don't we all agree that there's a world of difference between arguing about whether civil unions or marriage is appropriate for homosexual relationships, as opposed to arguing whether the proper means of execution is beheading, the piling of stones or stoning to death?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/12/04 09:52 PM
2x6 - I have been waiting for SOMEONE to point out what the world of Islam thinks of homosexuality... Thank you !

By the way... What I approached in my last post was the idea of making our entire society more free, rather than to make more laws...

PM... I really think your heart is in the right place... so rather than try to anger you.. I have been trying to put some of your points into perspective...

Example - You questioned me wondering id "ALL INSURANCE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED BECAUSE THERE IS FRAUD?" ... Because there is fraud, there are those hired to prevent fraud. Insurance fraud is a CRIME... You can go to jail...

So... let's say a couple of guys DO get married fraudulently, do we now need a "Gay Fraud" investgative source ? And if they turn out to be straight, do was charge them with Fraud ? I am thinking of Don Knot's character in "Three's Company" as the lead on this... ... I think he was Mr. Farley...

OR ... If we simplified all this BS in our current laws, and recognized that people should keep at least 75 % of what they earn, whether gay OR straight, regardless with WHOM they live, we would ALL be better off.


Posted By: Michael_A Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 01:50 AM
In reply to:

Are you suggesting that all the single guys you employ are going to "marry" their buddies to get them benefits?


Actually, I would. If my best friend, who happens not to have insurance, needed care badly enough, I would. No one would ever know that I weren't having an actual relationship with him. All I'd need to do is let him use my spare bedroom and mailing address for a while.

I could deal with the embarrasment of having people at work think I was gay if I were saving his life in the process. I love him like a brother.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 02:23 AM
In reply to:

Michael, your extrapolations don't work at all. Peeing on someone else's property, breaking and entering, and car jacking all violate the rights of others. Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else's rights (beat me to it, Turbodog). And frankly, comparing gay marriage to such criminal activities as car jacking and breaking and entering is more than a little offensive.




I'm sorry that you're feelings are hurt. However, I stand by my position that being gay is just flat out abnormal. There is a problem. We should try to cure it rather than accomodate it. It's OK for 2 guys to love each other, but the physical consumation of that love requires the improper use of the anatomy that they were given. If we allow it to be considered normal, then we are propogating the problem, not addressing it in a corrective fashion. One of the basic human instincts is the subconscience need to procreate. In gay humans, this instinct is present, but the basic "instructions" that cause males to gravitate towards females (and vice versa) to accomplish the propagation of the species are just screwed up. If all humans were gay, the species would be extinct in just one generation. So how in the world can anyone say scientifically say that something is not defective in a gay human? It's just common sense that there is a malfunction somewhere.

Considering this behavior "normal" could possibly affect the proper development of what otherwise might be normal children. Keep it hidden from children less than 16, and make sure that none of my hard earned money is stolen from me and given to someone who may or may not be scamming the system, and I'm fine with it. You can put whatever you want into wherever you want, on whoever you want, just do it in private and keep it away from the little ones. If they have the problem, they will eventually figure it out on their own.

Quite frankly, I have been offended that my views, which correlate with what have been considered "social norms" for thousands of years, are said to be offensive by anyone. My advice to you. Get used to it. After a while, you get numb to being offended. I'm sick and tired of being offended. I've just stopped being quiet about it. As this issue gets ramrodded down people's throats, you're gonna see more and more people put their foot down. So yes, my extrapolations do work. From my point of view, marrying 2 men, or 2 women is just as bad as stealing someones's car at gunpoint. Both are equally wrong.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 03:13 AM
Craig - Breath deeply. First of all, I reread my post and I realize now that one could infer that I was calling you ignorant, fearful and hateful. Truthfully, that was not my intention. It's a fuzzy line, I agree, but I truly was really talking in a historical context. My intention was only to draw a similarity between what I perceived to be your argument and those made in the past in darker times.

So, for this I do apologize. It was not remotely my intention to offend you like that.

Now, to address some of your points.

I was not saying that it was ever illegal for blacks to marry. I was asking if they should be allowed to. They're a minority who have suffered greatly under policies allowed by our government in the past. Using the same logic, one could spew some racist sentiments that they would be more inclined to cheat the system (THIS IS JUST TO MAKE MY POINT - NOT MY THOUGHTS), so should we allow the government to distcriminate against them because of some perceived benefit to white people? You may not want to draw this comparison, but it's the same tune we're hearing here.

In your obvious frustration with my comments, you blasted me for missing some of your original points. To be sure, I went back through your original text and I think that it is a bit less clear than you might have thought. I did see that you clarified that the dictionary is only a reflection of the times, but you followed it by a seemingly harshly emphasized statement that the definition in the book doesn't mention same-sex marriage. This alone led me to believe that your point was the standard conservative stance that the definition of marriage in the dictionary somehow should be treated as a dictate to not allow same-sex marriage. Then, your statements following that talked of a position that government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Based on those two sentances on their own, it's easy to see how I inferred that your point was to assert that this issue should remain under the church's domain and not the governments....again, one could infer that this was another religious-based argument for leaving marriage as it is framed in the bible and not even entertaining the idea of modification.

Now, onto the latter part of your post and your subsequent posts....

After reading your post and the subsequent posts, I think I am beginning to realize that your position is that this problem can be solved by revamping the existing laws. To this I partially agree with you. Your proposed positions are a good step forward. However, you are missing the point here.

All of those things will remedy some of the issues and concerns, but they don't address the core problem. Our existing laws discriminate against gay people. No matter how you sugar-coat it, those arguing for leaving marriage laws as they are are advocating discrimination. So, yes, you are right, I truly hope that no one ever gives me a valid, cogent, and persuasive argument against giving gays the same rights as heteros. However, I will never stick my head in the sand to avoid listening to anyone's arguments. I never blindly hold any belief without constantly reevaluating and modifying as I learn more and gain more insight. Therefore, your assertion that I don't want to hear opposing views and will not allow my positions to be swayed are off the mark.

In closing, Craig, let me say something without trying to sound too condescending....you should try and slow down in your posts. Sometimes you jump around too quickly, which leaves out some details and leaves the door open for misinterpretation.

Oh yah....to address your question...yes, I wanted to make sure that it was answered by more than one person ....I also agree with PM about this, one's race, gender, and sexual orientation should be inconsequential to the rule of law. Government is here to protect the rights of all of it's citizens, regarless of these differences.

BigWill - I speak of gay marriage only in the sense of government and the law. I do not care about this issue in the context of religion, as it is not pertinent to the issue of law. Whether or not the church's accept gay marriage is between the church and it's parishoners (spelling?). I am arguing solely based upon the legal benefits and standing of the present status of "married".

Craig - Again, I apologize for ruffling feathers here. I respect everyone's opinions here....on both sides of any issue (except those that support Kerry ) If I truly wanted to call you an ignorant hateful idiot, I would have said so directly in my post. I may live in the south, but I'm from New England where we tell it like it is.

Peace Brother.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 03:30 AM
I'm going to try to respond to you in a civil manner.
In reply to:

being gay is just flat out abnormal.


If by abnormal, you mean the majority of the population is not gay, then I agree with you.
In reply to:

but the physical consumation of that love requires the improper use of the anatomy that they were given


I certainly hope you frown upon oral sex.
In reply to:

So how in the world can anyone say scientifically say that something is not defective in a gay human?


If all humans were gay, then it would be a defect, yes. Are all humans gay? Are we at risk of becoming extict? Use your head, not your gut.
In reply to:

From my point of view, marrying 2 men, or 2 women is just as bad as stealing someones's car at gunpoint. Both are equally wrong.


Ok, but WHY is it wrong, other than the fact that you find it disgusting?

Human beings have evolved to a point where genetic are not a determinant factor for behavior. Who the hell cares if a penis was designed to go only one place. Humans have great imaginations, expecially where sex is concerned. Who are YOU to tell people how to act. You certainly have a right to be offended, I'll give you that.

How does a homosexual union infringe on YOUR rights?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 03:41 AM
Michael_A - WOW....It must be comforting to live in a world that is so black and white.

Let's try to test your position a bit. Let's go ahead and assume for argument's sake that homosexuality is indeed an abnormality in the human makeup....some difference in hormonal development....whatever. Would this not put them in the same situation as dwarfs?...or perhaps albinos? Both arguably do not fit the logical progression of evolution. So, if we are assuming that gays are a genetic abnormality, they they are in the same boat as dwarfs and albinos. I am assuming by your arguments that you are opposed to granting gays marital standing in they eyes of the law. Then, logically, we have to assume that you are against allowing dwarfs and albinos to get married. Is this the case? If not, then there is potentially a flaw in your position.

In the end, you can stand on the pulpit, pound your fists, and scream that gays are abhorent...whatever you want to do...it's your right....but you still can't justify discriminating against them. They are citizens of the United States and deserve the same protections that you and I enjoy.

By the way, you seem pretty angry about this. How do you think that gay man feels who can't stay overnight in the hospital with his partner of 20 years?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 03:43 AM
"How does a homosexual union infringe on YOUR rights?"

PM - That's the million-dollar question.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 04:24 AM
Turbo - You think I am not clear sometimes... then feel free to ask me to clarify. I will be happy to oblige....

As for changing laws... Perhaps this will help make a point.

In 1900, If two men wanted to live together in a "civil union", all they needed to do was move in together. period.

There were no Social Security taxes to pay, no income taxes, either. Nor were there any estate taxes. As the government has grown, rights have been taken away. In the case of marriage, the government says a man and woman being married is good. They give a small tax break. The government says a marriage between two men is bad. Whoops ! ... no tax break.

I say, If they were not confiscating as much money as they currently are, they would not have this POWER to micro-manage.

My point is this: take away all these government controls on our lives, and none of this stuff matters.

In the example above, let's say the gay couple managed to save $1,000,000. NOW let's say that they were both old, and wanted to give all but $10,000 to relatives, they could in 1910.

Today, that would be illegal. Really... look it up. If you, in today's world, had $100,000,000... and wanted to give it away, you are going to be taxed on doing so... even though you paid taxes on the money when you earned it.

In the meantime, the government discriminates against ALL sorts of people. In our current method of government.... the following occurs regularly:

1. Some people are taxed $1 for making $100, others are taxed $40, while another is given a credit of $10.

2. Some people pay into Social Security for 45 years, and never get a dime back out. Others pay nothing, yet get hundreds of thousands.

3. Some people get higher education paid for by using taxpayer moneys, while others must foot his/her own bill.

4. My small business pays a far higher tax burden on income than does General Electric.

I could type for hours... but to summarize, since 1787, the US Government has taken away freedoms. Each new law takes more of our freedom. The solution to this is not MORE laws, it is repealing current laws...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 04:43 AM
In reply to:

could type for hours... but to summarize, since 1787, the US Government has taken away freedoms. Each new law takes more of our freedom. The solution to this is not MORE laws, it is repealing current laws...


I'm with you 99.3% on this. I reserve the .7% as a safety net for future disagreements.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 05:04 AM
Absolutely. 100% agreement here. Your earlier post with the 4 points also spot on.

Unfortunately, it will be impossible to get gov't - and people's expectation of its role in their lives and in society in general - back to where it was before. People want things done for them because they are afraid of failing, they're afraid of trying and/or they're just frickin' lazy.

The human will can overcome almost anything: cutting your arm off with a pocket knife in order to survive, lifting a car off of a loved one, carrying on after the worst tragedies, etc...

But nowadays it's like we're all helpless victims. Nobody is responsible for their own behavior. Nobody is left to solve problems on their own. We think we need welfare, 12 step programs, affirmative action, etc..., but what we really need is the desire to improve our own conditions and the will to make it happen as individuals. All this touchy-feely psycho-babble, and the programs that have come with it, is destroying the will of the individual.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 06:44 AM
In reply to:

From my point of view, marrying 2 men, or 2 women is just as bad as stealing someones's car at gunpoint. Both are equally wrong.




Wow. Two people expressing their desire to share their love in a permanent monogamous relationship is just as bad as threatening injury or death to steal another's belongings.

Wow.

I've got nothing else to say to you on that topic.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 07:08 AM
Seems to me that a religious person would note that about 5% of every population is homosexual - the Eternal One wired them that way. I don't figure it's a matter of choice, but nature - folks are either born one way or the other. If a society decides that the institution of marriage is only for heterosexuals, I can live with that, as long as there is some civilly recognized union which confers to homosexuals all the legal rights that married folks have. Within a few more generations I figure the reasons for the distinction will have faded. Some societies progress, not all at once, but as is implied by the concept of progress, over time. Some societies don't progress.

Isn't it interesting however, that the most liberal folks on this site, the ones most worked up about permitting homosexuals to marry one another, are the same folks who are most understanding of Islamic Jihadists? Anyone see an irony here? I'll help ... Islamic Jihadists would execute homosexuals. Why all the ire directed at our own society which is tolerant and confers legal protection on homosexuals, and so much 'sensitivity' for a culture which would divest you of your favorite parts before killing you?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 11:27 AM
Craig - I agree with everyone else.....you are basically right in your points. However, I think that there is still something missing there. Yes, the existing system is unfair to many of us. I am one of those that is taxed more than others and probably will not see any social security in my time. But, the difference here is that I am still allowed basic rights and protections in relation to my spouse that 'married' gays are not. Yes, the long-term solution is to roll back and/or modify the existing laws to remove some of the tax-related benefits, etc. However, there will always be some components of the law relating to spousal rights that will remain, such as the not having to testify against spouse thing, etc. This being the case, even if we have changed and removed all of the fiscal benefits associated w/ being married, we will still have a segment of society being denied rights and protections that others enjoy.

Keep something in mind......In the end, it's easy for us to stand here and say that the solution is to modify existing laws and that more laws just exhacerbates the problem.....it's easy for us because we're not the one's being discriminated against.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 11:33 AM
2X6 - I'm glad you used the word 'most' in your second paragraph. For a second there, I thought you were calling me a liberal. Those would be fighting words. I put away those childish ways.
Posted By: Riffman gay unions - 09/13/04 02:34 PM
I am a Republican and I have to say I'm ashamed of my party's stance on this social issue. I'm ashamed in general and I'm ashamed that so many in the party are stupid enough to take the side of an issue they can't win. One day, I hope the moderates like myself will steer the party's future.

I think its quite clear the majority of the US will accept gay civil unions with equal rights: http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm. Last number was 48% for civil unions with 7% unsure.

Michael's words are frightening when realizing that so many other people share his views. Our social norms in Western society included beheading and other brutal methods of execution right up to the 18th century. Just because they were done for thousands of years, doesn't make it right.

Give us what Craig sub proposes AND civil unions.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/13/04 05:02 PM
In reply to:

are the same folks who are most understanding of Islamic Jihadists?


Now now, 2x6. Advocating that we try to understand their motivations and the context in which such a person can be driven to evil is not the same thing as patting Islamic Jihadists on the back. I think they (meaning the people who are killing or want to kill innocents -- not ALL people in the Islamic culture) are as evil as the next guy. Please don't exaggerate.

I would also like to comment on an aspect of your eariler post about how homosexuals are treated in the Middle East. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but I certainly saw an implication that homosexuals living in the United States should just plain be happy they aren't being tortured or killed. As if that were enough.
Posted By: pmbuko Holy crap - 09/13/04 05:52 PM
Oh, this is NOT GOOD.

What do you get when an Apache helicopter fires rockets at a firebombed Bradley vehicle "to protect Iraqi citizens" from equipment salvageable by the enemy, WHILE said vehicle is surrounded by a crowd of unarmed men and children, WHILE said event is being taped by a reporter working for Al Aribaya (a Reuters affiliate), AND said reporter gets killed on camera?

BTW, the video footage has been shown throughout the Middle East. Do you feel safer now?

Here's another article about it.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 06:22 PM
PM - As difficult as it may be to understand... when ANYONE decides to get on or into a military vehicle during a battle, these types of incidents will occur. And yes, with the OVERALL effort we are making in combating world terrorism, I feel safer.

If you read the article, the Interim PM of Iraq is STILL pushing for elections in January.

I DO have to say it is a good thing we did not have today's media in 1862.... Picture this "quote" as today's media would have sounded like 142 years ago...

Dateline : April 7th, 1862.

<<< In the past 48 hours during the Battle of Shiloh, in Corinth, Mississippi, there were 23,000 Union soldiers killed in what was supposed to be a quick offensive. Abraham Lincoln, as our Commander in Chief, (and with no actual military experience of his own), sent these 23,000 men to their deaths. He really had no concrete plan to win this battle, and, like other battles before it, casualties have been extreme.

What are we fighting for ? Southern States wanted to keep their slaves, and the Federal government in Washington, DC. takes the indefensible position that these people deserve to be free. Even though polls show 84% of slaves are happy with their current owned status, (As Sam Johnson, slave in Virginia said: "I get three meals a day and master let me have a wife) Lincoln has, to date, sent over 150,000 men to their deaths to fight a war only 51 % of Americans support. What Lincoln fails to understand is these people have NEVER been free, and are not equipped to handle freedom, even if freedom is given to them>>>
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 06:36 PM
I think you're grabbing at straws with your comparison. It's preposterous to compare modern situations to those of 1862. Or perhaps you're trying to say that President Bush will be compared to the likes of Lincoln in 150 years?


First, I agree that it's highly dangerous for people to congregate around a still burning US military vehicle -- I personally would run the other way. However, this was NOT a battle. The people around the vehicle were not responsible for the vehicle being on fire. They were gawkers / bystanders, many of them children.

Such indiscriminate killing is doing nothing to win the hearts and minds of the liberated Iraqis.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 06:44 PM
PM - I am now reading Reuters on this ... The site you are refrring to is most definitely anti-US ... PLEASE people, no "Independent UK" ... or any other idealogue based "news organizations" ... Reuters is not exactly pro-US, and their take is quite different.

Personally, I will go on record that the Independent UK is NOT a credible source of news.

As for my "news report" .... it was tongue in cheek, as a look at how today's media WOULD have reported the Civil War... and it smacks of a lot of truth...
Posted By: Riffman Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 06:51 PM
I would agree. Independent UK is a sham news organization. Reuters is anti-Israel and anti-US. I question the story.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 06:55 PM
Even Reuters quotes the Iraqi Government's reporting that it was 20 men killed... not women and children as the "UK Independent" said. And our Soldiers stated they were being fired on....
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 07:00 PM
PMB, the picture on the link you provided does not look to me to show children standing around a burning Bradley. In a battle, sensible civilians usually run away. What was the battle? Some group of folks in civilian dress had just blown up a US armored personel carrier. No tears shed for those fellas, PMB? So, the military blows up the Bradley so that it isn't looted for its weapons as so many others have been in the past, and folks got killed, including the journalist embedded with the folks who blew up the Bradley. Risk of war, I'd say.


Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 07:08 PM
wow...I'm away for a day or so and the whole "gay marriage" issue comes to a head. I'm going to respond to a bunch of things all at once. I hope it doesn't get too confusing...



Nearly every excuse I've heard against gay has been used before against interracial marriage. Here's a good article I found. Give it a read.

Are you not "forced" to pay for your straight employees spouces insurance now? Why not eliminate all your workers benefits right now? Or is having to pay for a gay man's partners insurance the straw that breaks the camel's back?

Basing your arguement against equal marriage benefits on not wanting to pay is pretty darn greedy. You're all for equal rights, so long as it doesn't cost you anything?

If God has a plan for us all...and has made each and every one of us...isn't it His doing that approx. 5% of the world's population is gay? Who are you to question it?

Populating the world is not an issue. You guys and gals do a great job of making babies. In fact...you do it too well! The world's population is growing out of control!

If having sex with the one you love is "wrong", then I don't want to be right.

Can I tell you how offensive "Who wants to marry a Millionaire" is? Or the loads of other "marriage" game shows are?

btw...it's good to see all the support for equality around here. We may differ on a lot of issues, but equality seems to be one that most of us can agree on.


Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 07:12 PM
Spiff... Why don't you try reading what I actually WROTE, and get back to me...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 07:18 PM
What about the Telegraph, is it a sham, too?

Another take

Folks, what happened here is this: Military helicopters fired on a crowd of people congregating around a bombed out Bradley vehicle. The vehicle was bombed at least an hour before the Apache fired on the crowd. The pilots say they fired because they were fired upon by small arms. If this is the case, then they were justified under the rules of engagement to return fire. The video does not show any evidence of gunfire, however. The official military story is that they were firing to destroy the Bradley vehicle in order to keep people from looting it.

Yes, this occurred in a part of Baghdad known to house insurgents. Not EVERYONE who lives there is a rebel. Many of the people injured in the blast were passing by on their way about their business. Many of them waited until they thought it was safe. Imagine you are an Iraqi citizen living in that area, wanting nothing to do with the rebels. I'm sure the majority of people in Iraq are trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. And yet they still die needlessly.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 07:25 PM
Yes, they are also a sham. The writing style reminds me of Journalism 101.... I am going with the Reuters story... They are NOT Pro-US ... and it is a balanced story.
Posted By: Riffman Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 07:28 PM
pmbuko, do you think the civilians were intentionally sought out and killed?

I actually read the Telegraph sometimes.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 07:37 PM
No, but does it really matter? All this just proves that you cannot wage a "limited war." Any and all people living near the true targets -- by no fault of their own -- are at risk. If I, as an American citizen, feel the military is not trying hard enough to spare innocent lives, how do you think the average Iraqi feels?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 07:38 PM
PMB ... The floor is yours. Tell us PRECISELY what needs to be done in Iraq.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 07:58 PM
I don't pretend to know the first thing about liberating a country. I do know that killing the people you are attempting to free is counterproductive, however. (One might say that under Saddam, as least people knew what sort of actions would get them killed.)

Look, I want the US to succeed in this as much as you do. This is WHY it angers me when they make a mistake as large and visible as this.
Posted By: pmbuko On a lighter note - 09/13/04 08:03 PM
Today in California, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a prohibition against copulating with corpses. Yep, until today, it was legal to screw a stiff. Necrophilia is now a no-no.

I wonder if this law covers the special case of "Well, s/he was alive when we started..." ??
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 08:09 PM
PM - So you are automatically buying that out troops are in the wrong here. I know a LOT of military people... and they are trained to revere civilians ... non-combatants are to be treated gently. I would put more stock into the notion that the terrorists killed their OWN people so they could blame us, rather than our guys shooting at un-armed people.

You are dealing with a mind-set that will strap a bomb on a 7 year old child, and send that child into a cafe... just to kill innocent civilians.

As a note... Several civilians WERE injured, and a Doctor on duty in Iraq stated that "The American Army Has No Morals" ... where do you suppose he got his info as to what happened ? With ZERO evidence, he said that our troops bombed unarmed civilians. An ambulance was hit by a shell... if you remember, during Gulf War I, similar claims were made, and it was later proven that the bombs were Iraqi...

We don't train our soldiers to do that.. these are absolute lies...

I am not knocking you, PM ... I see what is said about our troops... but it really is not the truth.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 08:23 PM
In reply to:

but it really is not the truth.


Modify that to "but it really is not always the truth" and I'll agree.

Mistakes do happen. And mistakes often have negative repercussions.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 08:28 PM
Mistakes do happen... but why is it that WE are the only country that gets criticized for mistakes? The suprise answer is fairly simple... we DO have a conscience in America. So... when we DO make a mistake, we try to make up for it.

NOW ... let us look at the terrorists... beheadings, car bombings... etc...

What I am suggesting is that people try to look through the pure lies that are perpetuated by the so-called "media" of the middle east....
Posted By: Riffman Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 08:33 PM
pmb, I guess we could get into a huge discussion on the validity of the war (which I don't desire to). I don't doubt that it sucks that those people died and I don't doubt many civilians affected there question our presence. But, given the fact that they were ruled by a maniacal dictator, I don't think the average civilian response is unadulterated hate towards the US. It depends on who you talk to. Many shiites would never appear to be thankful to us for putting them in majority power even though they are.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 10:03 PM
Craigsub...is this not what you wrote?

In reply to:

For example, as a business owner, I provide, to the spouse/children of employees, health insurance. Under the concept of Gay Marriage, I would be forced, by law, to pay for "His Husband's" health insurance. Note the word FORCED, that is an infringement on my rights TO RUN MY BUSINESS. And anyone will be able, under gay marriage, to head to the local magistrate, get married, and show up at my door with a demand that I add his "new husband" to "his" benefits package.

Should my state adopt "same sex" marriage, I would immediately eliminate all employee benefit programs. Not because I have a problem with the so called "gay lifestyle", but because I know what the outcome would be: I, and many other small business owners, would be placed in a position of paying for more scams than you can imagine.




If your argument is that straight guys and straight women across the country are going to go rush out and get "married" so they can have insurance, pardon me but that's the LAMEST excuse I've ever heard against same-sex marriage.

Why don't you end all your employee benefits now in protest of all the sham straight marriages there are going on?


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 10:44 PM
In reply to:

What I am suggesting is that people try to look through the pure lies that are perpetuated by the so-called "media" of the middle east....


And what I am suggesting is that just because the United States of America has chosen a certain course of action does not necessarily make it right and just, or free from alternatives. You may get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside that President Bush is taking action against capital T Terror in this way, but it scares the hell out of me.

Why?

I believe all life is sacred. Any time even a single innocent life is taken, that is an atrocity. I don't care whether you're a highly trained Apache pilot or a bloodthirsty Islamic Jihadist Every innocent life taken is an indelible blemish on your soul. In my eyes, there is absolutely no diffence between an Iraqi man who gets killed on his way to work and a US man who got killed in the WTC collapse. Both were victims of an event over which they had no control. Both were victims of circumstances brought upon them without their consent. Both were human beings with families and histories and life left to live.

It's easy for us to analyze everything from the safety of our chairs, but you cannot sugar-coat the loss of innocent lives by calling it "allowable collateral damage done in the process of creating greater good." Greater good for whom?

I do not place myself higher up the totem pole of life-worthiness than people in other countries.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 10:58 PM
Spiff... Nice try.. but that is PART of what I wrote... read EVERYTHING I wrote, then tell me how lame I am.

Right now, I am pretty annoyed with you. You are TOO intelligent to not know what you are doing here. Since you are quoting about 2 % of what I said on the matter, why don't you quote EVERYTHING ... or are you afraid ?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 11:02 PM
PM - I agree that taking innocent life is terrible. But I have a hard time believing we took any innocent lives here. You have a choice, believe OUR soldiers, or their doctor who was not even there...

OUR guys say they fired on only "insurgents" ...

By the way, Since taking any innocent life, whether by accident or not, is equally bad, Then you support the same punishment for First degree murder as you would someone accidently killing someone in a car accident, right ?
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 11:16 PM
So the journalist wasn't an innocent?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/13/04 11:20 PM
A journalist in war is innocent like a race car driver is at Indy.... they know precisely the risk being taken when they enter the field of battle. Remember our embedded journalists ? Did people react this way when nine Western Journalists were killed last year ? Nope...
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 12:02 AM
Craigsub...give me a break. Since when do we start quoting entire messages. I quoted the point I had issue with. Perhaps you don't have a defense for "logic"?


Posted By: BigWill Re: It's war: no bonus points for being nice - 09/14/04 12:04 AM
From the article I read in my local paper the armored fighting vehicle was disabled by a roadside bomb, our boys escaped with some injuries, a crowd assembled and began to celebrate atop the wreckage waving the banner of some terrorist organization, the US helicopter lit them up. If that's how it happened, then I say, "Good job. Keep doing it." If you're celebrating US military defeats then you must be the enemy - adios.

The new Iraqi gov't needs to establish order and it apparently is not going to manage that by being soft.

BTW, a nice little quote regarding domestic weenie-ism:

"We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald W. Reagan
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 12:09 AM
In reply to:

By the way, you seem pretty angry about this. How do you think that gay man feels who can't stay overnight in the hospital with his partner of 20 years?




I think this is wrong, and could be fixed without modifying the definition of marraige one iota. There are many things that cause me no grief at all regarding gay rights. I'll cover a few:

I support their right not to be denied a job because they are gay.

I support their right to go anywhere, anytime any time that they wish without having to be afraid of being assaulted because they are gay. I do NOT support "hate crimes" legislation. If someone murders a straight person, and someone else murders a gay person, I say fry 'em both. The penalty for murder, assault, etc. should be uniform regardless of the victim's demographic status.

I support their right to name any person to whom they wish to leave their belongings to when they die, and for that named person to have the same zero tax status as a man / woman arrangement.

I support their right to name any person who they wish to share power of attorney with for all medical, legal, and financial matters.

I simply do not support their wish to destroy religious institutions that have existed for thousands of years. Craig said it, our greedy governemt involved itself, and now marraige is being destroyed because it is now a pseudo government institution.

As to being angry, I'm not. Frustrated, yes. There is no hate in my heart for gay people. I simply do not believe that it is healthy, moral, or normal. If you do not toe the line that being gay is just the way it is, and everything in the world should be changed to accomodate it, then you get blasted as being a hateful, fearful, arrogant, sob. You don't think that I should be even a little frustrated?
In reply to:

In the end, you can stand on the pulpit, pound your fists, and scream that gays are abhorent...whatever you want to do...it's your right....but you still can't justify discriminating against them. They are citizens of the United States and deserve the same protections that you and I enjoy




You pound your pulpit, and I'll pound mine. Not allowing someone to participate in a religious ceremony because they do not meet the criteria that have been used by those institutions for centuries is NOT discrimnation. I would have loved to have been Barmitzvad. It looks fun. But guess what? I'm not Jewish, so I am not allowed to participate. Discrimination? Yes, but I have no choice but to live with it. The only difference is that the government hasn't set up a framework of taxes based on whether you've been Barmitzvad or not. If it had, then I would be having the exact same argument as those who support gay marraige. Discrimination is a part of life. Drive a red car not a blue one - you have discriminated. Took the train instead of the bus? - you have discriminated. Have milk instead of OJ this morning? - you have discriminated. Discrimination is a part of life. We can not remove it. Marriage is not a right. It is a religous ceremony. By the way. I do not believe in "marraiges" performed by judges, or any other legal entity. To me men and women who are NOT religous should be subject to the same "rules" as gay people. They should have a way to set up all of the legal aspects of sharing life, legal matters, and wealth that would cover both (with the obvious addition of parental matters as well). See? I just lumped all of you athiest heterosexual married people in with gay people on the marraige issue. Wearing 3 flame suits now...

I do support marraiges performed by ship Captains, and any other person in high authority when in times of dire crisis.

Oh.. and I do not see the World as black and white. There is grey. There are just too many shades of grey for us to deal with each one individually. Logically, you need to take degree into consideration. Look at your computer. Everything in it down to the most miniscule circuit in it is either "on" or "off". Binary. 2 choices. Yet when you combine millions of yes/no, on/off, true/false possibilities, you find that all of the options are covered. So yes, every issue, no matter how grey, can be broken down into it's smallest components, and therefore into a series of black and white issues.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 12:17 AM
I see... So that is your defense to take two day's worth of conversation and try to discredit it with one paragraph. That is pretty lame... ... SPiff... You know FULL well from reading everything I wrote that MY solution is to take the government control out of everyone's life.

Had the Government not co-opted marriage from religion in the first place, Gay marriage would not be an issue. As an avowed Athiest, you should appreciate that concept. Government uses marriage as another way of leveraging power over people.

Gay Unions (actually... ANY secular union) should be a private affair. If government enacted the four points I posted, any two, or five, or 22 people could live together anyway they thought was desirable with no penalties from the government for not conforming to some role they deem fit.

By the way, Anyone who does NOT think that the laws being proposed would NOT lead to abuse is either lying or naive. And Spiff, if YOU LOOK at what I said, it would NOT be the gay community that would abuse these laws... I was VERY clear about that. I personally know 8 guys and 4 girls who have ALL said they would use just such a loophole... They are all divorced, love to just have fun, and never want to marry again... Would they actually go through with it ? I don't know... but they sure love yapping about it....

Again... give ME freedom... not more laws.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 12:38 AM
In reply to:

Ok, but WHY is it wrong, other than the fact that you find it disgusting?


Both are wrong because the foundations of the Constitution are based on the Judeo Christian value system. In that belief system, both stealing and homosexuality are defined as being wrong. Speeding is wrong because the law says it is, not because you can't physically operate the vehicle at the higher speed. I do not believe that I expressed disgust anywhere in my post. If that was the impression that you recieved, my apologies.
In reply to:

Human beings have evolved to a point where genetic are not a determinant factor for behavior.


Evolution has stopped, and nobody told me? That is precisely why I think we need to shield small children from even knowing that it exists. The environment has a substantial role in determining human behavior during the formative years.
In reply to:

Who the hell cares if a penis was designed to go only one place. Humans have great imaginations, expecially where sex is concerned. Who are YOU to tell people how to act.


I never said that I wanted to tell anyone how to act. They can do whatever they like - in private, just like you and your wife. I have no desire to tell them what to do. They certainly make no bones about telling ME what to do, or what I should think, though. Humans can have any and all the sex they want. More power (and best of luck) to them. All I ask is that they don't do it on the front porch in front of the kiddies.
In reply to:

How does a homosexual union infringe on YOUR rights?


It would when the government starts confiscating funds from my paycheck to support it, and when my employer cuts my benefits to provide theirs.
In reply to:

I certainly hope you frown upon oral sex.


I've been told that it is more of a snarl.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 12:51 AM
In reply to:

Discrimination is a part of life.


You know full well that the legal definition of discrimination is not simply "choosing". When you discriminate between milk and OJ in the morning, the one you end up not choosing doesn't feel bad.

Just so we're clear, I agree that religions should not be forced to change to accomodate homosexuality. They have a set of rules separate from the government and they can do as they wish.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 12:54 AM
I think I Yogi Berra'ed this one... One too many nots...
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 12:55 AM
You know full well that the government is not going to stop giving marriage licenses, and tax breaks to EVERYONE. I agree, that is the best solution, but we don't live in that kind of a "perfect" world. It FAR too dificult to take away privilages that people have gotten used to. Try taking away straight couples tax breaks, and THEN watch all hell break loose! If you offered people the choice between giving gays marriage licenses, and all the benefits that come with that, OR taking away all the benefits that come with marriage licenses for everyone, I think you'll agree that gays would be getting married faster than you can say "tax break".

It boils down to the fact is straight people can get a piece of paper that says they're entitled to 100's of rights (many of which are financial - others not) that my partner and I are not, for no other reason than that we're gay. No matter how you slice it, that's not right. Any straight couple, even complete strangers can walk into a town hall and get that piece of paper, yet committed couples that have been together for decades cannot. How can you defend that without bringing God into it?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 12:57 AM
In reply to:

the foundations of the Constitution are based on the Judeo Christian value system.


That is the biggest UNTRUTH ever to come from the Christian Right. The majority of the founding fathers were Deists -- they believed in a higher power, but thought the idea of Jesus' divinity was absurd. Please read this page: http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

Now, let's pretend and say they WERE Christians. Even then, they had the wonderful idea to say that government shoudl be completely separate from religion. Therefore, any laws or morals based solely upon religion are illegal under our constitution.

In reply to:

All I ask is that they don't do it on the front porch in front of the kiddies.


There are probably more straight couples who have sex in front of kiddies than gay people. You're trying to paint homosexuals as criminals here.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 01:06 AM
Spiff... I totally reject the notion that we will never get to what I posted. In 1995, the IRS had the power to find you guilty until you proved yourself innocent.

Congress overturned that law in 1997.

EVERYONE thought that was impossible.

All it takes is for some people with courage to fight for things like owning our OWN Social Security, a true Flat Tax, eliminating loopholes. Once the American People find they can do their taxes in 15 minutes, and EVERYONE pays a fair share... It will pass. We DO have a Flat 2.8% tax in PA., by the way.

And I remain against what is being proposed as long as all these other painfully expensive laws are on the books. It WILL open too many avenues to abuse.

But, for argument, list the non financial discriminations you have faced, and we can discuss those...



Posted By: Michael_A Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 01:11 AM
I think people of all sexual preferences should keep it away from children. This is not anti gay in any way, shape, manner, or form.

In reply to:

That is the biggest UNTRUTH ever to come from the Christian Right.


uh... I only go to church for Christmas, weddings, and funerals. The "Christian Right" won't have me.

I said "Judeo christian values" not Christian values. There is NO seperation of church and state. There "shall be no state sponsored religion" is what it says. Restraint from sponsoring religion is not the same as seperating all forms of religion from government.

We just have to agree to disagree on this subject.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 03:45 AM
Instead of just taking the easy route and agreeing to disagree, you should do some research on this. I think that someone has already posted links, but I know that there are letters out there from Madison and the others directly discussing the quandry that you encounter if you involve the church in any aspect of government. The founding fathers may have been god-fearing and the ideas they used may have been judeo-christian in nature, but they were quite detailed in their intent to draw a line of separation between religious influence and the process of governing fairly ALL citizens.

....just a suggestion. Try to separate your concern over the issue of marriage in a religious sense from the governmental designation. I'm not sure that many here are arguing for church-sponsored marriage of gays. As I said before, that is between the church's and their parishioners. What we are talking about is simply the legal union in the eyes of the government and the protections that the government presently affords those designated as "married".
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 04:35 AM
Turbo... The REALLY ironic part of all this. You and Spiff say that church and state should be totally separate... yet you propose that the government INCREASE its role in a religious based institution. Marriage.

It is unlikely to pass, what you seek, not because of religious zealots, but because politicians don't like giving up power. Especially when they don't gain from doing so. Here they won't.

I have yet to talk to anyone who disagrees with the points of owning our own SS... a true flat, fair tax losing the loop holes... etc... it would do what everyone wants... allow freedom of choice.

Under THIS idea... Spiff gets total freedom from government in his personal life, he gets to plan a better life, Why not embrace freedom both in economics and from politicians ?


Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 04:36 AM
I got a problem with tight pastel cotton knit shirts, and t-shirts too, tucked into tight Levis. That just annoys the hell out of me.

I've always wondered if lesbians use simulated male parts in the bedroom. My wife is too embarassed to ask her gay friends so I may never know.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 05:30 AM
See, that's where my curiosity doesn't go. Don't want to know.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 05:45 AM
Likewise I totally reject the notion that Roger and I will never be married.

Here's the complete list of all 1049 rights and responsiblities that I'm not entitled to.

Here's a real world example for you. Roger and I just bought a townhouse as you all probably know. The place is in his and his parents name. If Roger were to die, I'd be out on the street. His parents would take the place over, and I'd be out. One of the advantages of owning rather than renting is that you can right off the interest you pay on your mortage on your taxes. Since the place is in Roger's name, only HE can do that. We'll be paying much more in interest than he'll be able to write off. I on the other hand make considerably more money than Roger. If we'd been able to file jointly, we could have saved a lot more money on taxes this year. Roger's health plan at work sucks. Mine is quite good. Even though my company offers "domestic partner" benefits, if I sign Roger up for insurance, the premium would come out of my check POST tax, as opposed to my bosses wife - her premium gets taken out pre-tax.

I could go on...I know you asked for non-financial issues...but right now I'm getting screwed financially. You'll have to read the .pdf if you want to. There's plenty there.



Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 06:02 AM
My inclination would be to vote for a civil union law which conferred all 1049 of the legal benefits of marriage on same sex civil unions.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 06:48 AM
Exactly. And that's all most gays want.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 06:51 AM
In reply to:

I've always wondered if lesbians use simulated male parts in the bedroom. My wife is too embarassed to ask her gay friends so I may never know.


Do you really have to wonder?

Perhaps you haven't heard this classic lesbian joke: "You know, I've got no problem with 'male parts.' It's just too bad they're attached to men."
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 11:28 AM
Spiff, I am signing off now. I keep trying to had a dialog, and you and PMB keep sending HUGE links.

I am not interested in reading yet another 75 page link.

So we are clear - I want more freedom for every American.

Good luck to you all.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 12:08 PM
Spiff - Thanks for posting that list. I was hoping you would do so. I knew that there were many areas of government where marrital was a consideration, but I wasn't able to draw examples outside of taxation, etc.

Craig - Again, I do understand your position about wanting to revamp government rather than expand it. Trust me, being a Libertarian, I am definitely for smaller government. When it comes to those individual reforms, I got your back should you decide to march.

However, the root problem here is that the changes you recommend are massive and will take a significant amount of time to implement, if ever. During that time, you still have a glaring inequality in how the government treats and benefits one group of citizens over another.

Finally, if you take a look through that massive list that Spiff posted, you begin to see that the protection afforded to "Spouses" and "married" persons in the eyes of the law expand far beyond the reforms you are suggesting....domestic violence, divorce, allimony, bankruptcy, veteran benefits, inheritance, student loans (responsibility), political candidacy, welfare, social security, child support/"Deadbeat" laws, etc, etc... Therefore, even if you assume that all of the reforms you mention are implemented, government consideration of marital status will still be present and prevalent.

In the end, no matter how much you want to make marriage a religious institution, it's not in the eyes of the government. It's a classification that carries massive amounts of benefits, protections, and responsibilities that should not be denied to a segement of society because it goes against popular opinion and/or religious sentiment.

For the record, "civil unions" works for me, as long as the laws treat them the same as marriages. After all, I am only advocating for the change of laws here. The religious ramifications are for the churches to deal with, fight over, and hopefully eventually come to terms with.
Posted By: ringmir Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 12:23 PM
You know spiff, I was wondering where you were for that whole conversation. I figured maybe you just didn't even want to go there Now I see you just weren't around, should've guessed.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 01:57 PM
Turbo... I will try this again, I AM NOT LOOKING AT MARRIAGE AS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. I am not sure HOW many times I need to say this. Your statement of "No matter how much you want to make marriage a religious institution" shows contempt.

As for your examples, and where they are just plain WRONG..

1. Violence against others is illegal, period. marital status is irrelevent.
2. Child support ? Child support has NOTHING to do with marriage, period. You have to determine who the birth mother and father are. That is the ONLY criteria for determining support.
3. Responsibility of student loans ? Ok... You want the right to pay off someone else's loan ? You can do that now.
4. Social Security ? I covered that. What I suggest WILL give EVERYONE more money, gay OR straight.
5. Bankruptcy... Nope. Both parties can file for bankruptcy now. There is no law preventing that.
6. Welfare ? Nope... Both parties can apply today, and doing so separately will yield more money than would filing as a married couple.
7. Divorce and Alimony can be handled by an agreement between any two people. Just draw up a contract beofre moving in together.
8. Inheritance... I covered that, too. With elimination of inheritance taxes.
9. Political Candiacy ? You REALLY lost me there. Show me the bills where a gay man cannot run for office.
Posted By: curtis Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 03:22 PM
Just an OT observation......this thread is HUGE!!!

Does anybody know if mySQL or UBB has any kind limitations on thread length. Hate to see you guys bring downt he server.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 03:27 PM
As the joke goes... "what DOES it mean when your server goes down on you?" ...
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 03:54 PM
It means I'm going back the that resturaunt again!


Posted By: bigjohn Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 04:07 PM
In reply to:

It means I'm going back to that resturaunt again!



well, be sure and leave a good tip!!

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 04:12 PM
Gentlemen - That was pretty bad... Funny, but bad.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 04:13 PM
Hey! You started it! You've been around here long enough that that shouldn't have surprised you!

I'm a bit disapointed in Peter though. He's dragged his mind out of the gutter lately.






Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 04:19 PM
I know... it was STILL bad... Spiff, One of the most hilarious moments in my life was when my cousin finally decided to tell me he is gay... He was 37, never married, I had never seen him in love, he is a great dancer (almost a cliche', as he has said himself), and women LOVE him. He also makes 400k per year as an executive with a Fortune 500 company.

So... At another cousin's wedding, he tells me he has something REALLY important to talk to me about. After he stammers around it, I asked him "Are you finally going to tell me you are gay?" ...

He looks shocked that I had figured this out... (see above, great looking... etc... and no women in his life).

I still abuse him over that.



Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 04:30 PM
He makes $400K a year and dances...what woman wouldn't love that? Six digit incomes are VERY sexy.

It's amazing how some people who are SOOOOO gay, don't realize how obvious it is.

Everyone always thinks I'm straight. I have zero fashion sense, I'm overweight, I don't dance, I like Ozzy, I enjoy fishing, working on cars...


Posted By: bigjohn Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 04:35 PM
In reply to:

I have zero fashion sense, I'm overweight, I don't dance, I like Ozzy, I enjoy fishing, working on cars...



UUUMMMMM???? i like those things too..?

i wonder if that means i am gay too......?

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 04:49 PM
Spiff ... Yep... If I could do one thing different, I would have learned to dance when I was in Junior High... Chicks dig that...

And yes, Cuz (his name from now on here) drives women nuts. He also missed on the fashion sense thing... his partner handles that. But women see this 6 foot, 2 inch, 200 pound man, successful and charming... and see Mr. Right. They automatically assume his partner is just a friend along for the ride... (ok... no smart ass comments about the ride part)

My wife typically gets three requests for a fix up whenever he visits... there are a lot of disappointed women, to say the least.
Posted By: mhorgel Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 04:51 PM
Craigsub;

Yours is the smartest post I have yet seen in this thread. The reforms you mention would go a long way toward ensuring long term economic growth in this country. I would add to your list a tort reform which makes the loser pay all costs associated with a suit. That would keep a lot of the frivolous lawsuits off the books.

What frivolous lawsuits you may ask? How about the silicone breast implant suit that put Dow Corning out of business despite the fact that there is not one iota of scientific evidence that silicone implants cause any kind of disease. How about the suits that drove all but 3 pharmaceutical companies out of the vaccine business? How about the tobacco lawsuits that essentially established a tax on cigarettes, while making several dozen lawyers into billionaires?

Are we as a country any better off without Dow-Corniong? Are we better off with only 3 of the dozen companies making vaccines still in the vaccine business? Are we any more healthy because cigarettes cost a buck more a pack? the answer is a resounding NO! The only people that these large class-action suits benefit are the lawyers who prosecute them.

This country has to get out from under the thumbs of the trial lawyers. Unfortunately, most of our government is made of trial lawyers, and their main job, it seems, is to pass laws that create more jobs for lawyers.

Mark
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 04:57 PM
Mhorgel ... Not only would I sign off on Tort Reform... I would look at it as a form of protecting society. The simplest way... The losing ATTORNEY has to pay the fees... not the indivudual in the suit... You would see a LOT of frivolous suits go away.

On a funny note, First I have a gay cousin, now I have to tell you my wife is an attorney.

I will go on the record now... If we start discussing Rodeo Clowns, we have NO Rodeo clowns in the family...
Posted By: craigsub Re: Shooting children in the back? - 09/14/04 05:13 PM
Mhorgel... I forgot my manners... Thank You for the compliment !
Posted By: mhorgel Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 05:14 PM
In reply to:

I believe all life is sacred.




PM, unfortunately our enemy in this case does not agree with your position. We are dealing with a mindset that says it's OK to recruit children to walk onto a school bus with explosives strapped to their bodies. What would you suggest we do with these people. Put them in time out? Violence is the only language the enemy speaks, and there is no way to beat them without violence and killing. The loss of life on both sides is tragic, but I would rather see a few innocent Iraquis killed than a lot of innocent Americans.

Mark
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 05:26 PM
Craig - I thought that I had clarified it, but that reference was not meant for you exclusively...rather it was more to MichaelA who had referenced 'destroying the religious institution. You have been very clear that you are speaking only of government's involvement. It was prior to my morning Mountain Dew when I typed that and I guess I forgot to clarify. Sorry about that.

Now...to your counter-arguments:
1. Domestic Violence - I think that domestic-violence laws are on the books not to clarify the penalties, etc. If that were the only purpose, then simple assault and battery charges would apply. Without having read the laws, I would assume that the laws deal with the different ramifications of one person that is married and living with their spouse when the incident happens.

2. Child Support - Your argument does not cover adopted children, which is applicable in this situation. Say two gay people are 'unofficially' married and the primary financial provider walks out the door...there are no protections in the law to force that person to take responsibility for the well-being of that adopted child.

3. Student Loan Responsiblities - If I'm not mistaken, the law holds spouses liable for the loans incurred by their spouses. Present laws do not protect the government's ability to recoupe those costs in the situation of two gay people married.

4. Social Security - I agree that reforms would provide more money per person. However, the present system provides benefits to spouses, which are denied to gay couples.

5. Bankruptcy - Yes, both can file. However, the bankruptcy laws take into consideration the income of spouses. One could argue (devil's advocate) that this will allow for abuses by gays because their incomes do not reflect those of their spouses. However, hetero couples cannot shield that income when attempting to file for bankruptcy.

6. Welfare - Same argument as above. If you are allowed to shield the income of your spouse, then you are opening the door for abuse.

7. Divorce/Alimony - I agree with your statement, however I am assuming that there are laws on the books defining those responsibilities....laws which help to guide the courts during divorces. These standards presently do not exist for gay couples. So, considering the fact that the average person might not proactively draw up contracts prior to goign into these relationships, you have standards/rules/laws set out there that apply only to a segment of society.

8. Inheritance - You covered the tax part, however that does not cover inheritance rights, etc. Right now, states dictate how much each party has rights to when dividing up assets....or who is at fault. Gay couples do not have these protections, so it's not hard to see situations where "posession is 9/10ths of the law" will preside, even in cases of adultery.

9. Political Candidacy - There was a law listed there concerning the threatening and protection of candidate spouses (obscure ). A gay man can run for office, but his spouse is not provided the same protections (secret service, etc) as the spouse of a hetero candidate.

FYI...I am not a lawyer, so my above interpretations are quite possibly lacking in some detail or insight. However, they do help to demonstrate what I'm trying to argue here. Marital status is threaded in and out of the laws in this country. We have three options here:

1. modify all of these laws to remove this confusion
2. grant homosexuals the same rights of marriage/union as heteros
3. continue to discriminate against them

I understand that your position is to target the first option and I can see your point to some degree. However, that is a massive undertaking, which could take many decades. My assertion is that the first step is to right the wrongs that are being endured by gays and then focus on cleaning up the laws. My fear, however, is that option #3 will remain the path of our government as long as it's so politically charged an issue.

Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 05:45 PM
Turbo, You are still not listing any "rights" here. In fact, Gays would LOSE a lot more than they gain under what you just typed.

Here is another "hot topic" in the country... reproductive rights.... The laws regarding child support are SO skewed as anti-male that most people do not believe it. I live with this from a child born in 1985. The woman told me she was on the "pill", and could not get pregnent.

Of course, she did. I had NO interest in the child. She wanted to keep the child. Had she wanted to abort, that is her right, but she decided it was HER time to have a baby.

What was MY choice ? I had none... So...

She sues me, and the court, under State Law, decides I have to pay EVERY expense for this child until she is 18 years old. I am given ZERO visitation rights, and will have paid over $200,000 during this time...

The money does not even go to the kid... it goes to the mother, who can do as she pleases.

So... In America Today...

A man's reproductive choice ENDS at conception.

A woman's ends at birth.

Now... Before someone gets all worked up about choice... If we are going to have choice, a man should be allowed to sign off, saying he is NOT going to be the parent here. I am not saying we should be allowed to kill the fetus, just that we can opt out.

A LOT more men get discriminated against with this than with any gay rights lack...


Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 06:02 PM
Yikes!...that's another can of worms. I'm going to leave that alone for now.

However, I will agree that gays will lose rights/freedoms in the situation that I described. They are making a choice to pursue this equal footing, so I am assuming that they know what they will be getting and losing. In writing my response, I began to realize that some of those protections are not necessarily to protect them, rather to protect the government.

In the end, it still comes back to the core reason that I am in the middle of this dialog. Gay couples are asking to be treated the same as hetero couples. They are asking to take on all the pros and cons of government-recognized marital agreements. I am arguing on their behalf solely because I believe that our government has no right to discriminate on individual societal groups, because it is here to protect and serve all of equally.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 06:11 PM
And I am saying that there a 100's of examples where people are discriminated against... and I disagree with them ALL... and want ALL people treated fairly... not just one group.

Off to golf !
Posted By: mhorgel Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 06:21 PM
In reply to:

It means I'm going back the that resturaunt again!




BAH-DUM-BUM!

Good one, Spiffy! That got a laugh from all of the folks in the office!

Mark
Posted By: mhorgel Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 06:22 PM
In reply to:

Everyone always thinks I'm straight. I have zero fashion sense, I'm overweight, I don't dance, I like Ozzy, I enjoy fishing, working on cars...




And then they find out you like Prince!

Mark
Posted By: twodan19 Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 06:54 PM
mark, i'm with you there.
dan
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 06:58 PM
Hey! Who doesn't like Prince?


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 10:00 PM
Hypothetical question, and this is directed to everyone.

Who do you think bin Laden wants to win the election in November?

This may seem like an irrelevant question, but you have to believe he has an opinion on the matter. Knowing who he wants to win in not a good enough reason to vote for the other guy, but it's interesting to ponder from the his perspective, nonetheless.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 10:37 PM
I'd say he'd rather George won. The more tear assing around the world George does, the more people he pisses off and the more recruits the terrorists get.

btw...semi-OT... Who has seen this?


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 11:44 PM
Saw it, maybe even in the theaters. It seemed plausible at the time, now even more so.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/14/04 11:50 PM
I agree. I wasn't going to link to an article I read recently, for fear that 'certain people' would slam it as an extremely biased, Bush-bashing op-ed piece; however, now that I know that 'certain people' don't even read links that are longer than a few paragraphs, I should be safe.

Why Al-Qaeda is Winning

I found it to be rather insightful and helped give some history and background to the forces we are up against. This is also where myu question about who you think Osama would vote for came from.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 03:20 AM
In reply to:

Who do you think bin Laden wants to win the election in November?



In order:

1 - Ralph Nader - He could blow up Americans until the cows come home without any retaliation at all from Nader.
(As long as osama provided the suicide bombers with OSHA approved hearing protection for their missions. If he didn't, all bets are off. Ralph might nuke him. )

2 - Kerry - He could get in between 2 and 5 attacks on the US during the 18 month period that Kerry would spend begging the French for permission to retaliate with a "surgical strike".

3 - Bush - Attack the US, lose a country that used to be a home base, as well as the hospitality of the biggest bully in the middle east. Even I think this option stinks.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 06:18 AM
Michael,

Do you actually believe Kerry would wait for permission from other countries before retaliating against perpetrators of another attack on our country? That's ludicrous.

The invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan -- you know, the country that was ruled by the Taliban and called Osama bin Laden a "guest of the Afghan people" -- were done under entirely different circumstances. A country that has been visciously attacked should not require permission to retaliate against a regime that willingly harbored the prime suspect. Invading Iraq, however, was not retaliation and even Bush needed "permission" before proceeding. This permission came from the countries that allied themselves with us. We would not have gone into Iraq if we had to do it totally alone.

So if you say Kerry would wait to ask for permission before retaliating after an attack on our soil, at least get your events straight.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 11:18 AM
Good NEWS !!!! We finally have an admission from the LEFT that we did NOT fight in IRAQ alone !! For about 18 months now, that has been the LEFT's rallying cry !

PMB - Welcome to our side...


Posted By: ringmir Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 01:30 PM
I generally stay away from the Iraq war issue because I'll be honest and say up front my position is not "well formed." But I'll give a shot at explaining it.

First, I think Iraq is not a better place now than it was before the war, but I think it will become a much better place within the next several years. I find it hard to believe that these people will reject democracy. I think if we can succesfully aid in the supression of any attempted "military coup"-like uprisings in the years to come, the situation will resolve itself well. Similarly, I think the US is not significantly safer now than it was, but there is the potential for it to become so in the next several years assuming a democratic Iraq is succesfull. *To me* the facts are:

1) The world as a whole does not agree that we made the right descision. Whether or not this matters is subjective.

2) If we can succesfully establish a stable democratic government in Iraq, nobody will debate the "correctness" of our actions ten years from now. (This includes France and Russia, but not North Korea...)

3) Either president, Kerry or Bush, will handle the next four years of presidency well with respect to the situation in Iraq. They will do it quite differently however with respect to foreign policy.

3a) Bush will continue to "penalize" countries that opposed the war by trying to block them out of potential commercial endeavors in Iraq as long as it is within his power to do so (or whatever other methods he can utilize to this end.) His thinking is, if you're not with us in the war on terror, then you're against us. To Bush the world is much more black and white than to Kerry. This may result in greater US benefit by way of stronger US ties in the democratic Iraq down the road a ways. In the short term it will be a continued strain on foreign relations, "world US image", as well as financially. (Although the resulting tax burden on US citizens will be significantly less than the tax burden on Greeks from hosting the Olympics...)

3b) Kerry will loosen up this policy and let in aid wherever offered. He'll do this to lighten the US load in Iraq, even if it means giving up potentially lucrative contracts to countries initially opposed to the war. This will result in a less significant US handhold in a democratic Iraq down the road, but will more immediately improve foreign relations and lighten the US financial load. I also think that "the world" has a bad enough view of Bush that "world US image" will immediately increase simply by Kerry being elected.

So then I have to ask myself, which of these two policies is right? Honestly I don't think I am qualified to decide. To me, this election is *NOT* really about the situation in Iraq, or about the war on terror. I firmly believe that both candidates are capable of handling that situation well. Nobody, democrat or republican, is going to say "Gee, they (terrorists) showed that they are willing to indiscriminantly kill thousands of people, but we shouldn't go after them by whatever means necessary because the world might not agree." To me this election is about domestic policy issues, and I know very clearly where my vote lies on those issues.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 07:10 PM
craigsub, I'm surprised that you would consider zero responsibility on the part of either parent a valid position. You are directly responsible for the existence of that person on this planet. Perhaps you were a bit "naive" to believe the young lady, but that doesn't change your obligations.
If we would like to shrink the gov't, and the public's dependence on it, individuals need to accept responsibility for their own actions - even mistakes such as your own (happened to my little brother the exact same way at the same age).
Posted By: spiffnme Re: conspiracy theory - 09/15/04 07:17 PM
Hmmmmm

Anyone seen this before? I'd never even heard of this particular conspiracy before.



Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 07:28 PM
BigWill, I am getting used to you being wrong about me. Go look again, I PAID $200,000, so tell me how I shirked my responsibility.

AND... Nice to know that being lied to makes someone "naive"

What I am saying (perhaps I need to use smaller words) is that we live in a society that exercises selective assignment of responsibility. According to guys like you...

1. If she had killed the fetus, that is ok.

2. If she Has the child, and wants to keep the child, that is ok.

3. If I voice an opinion that since it was HER choice to keep the child, that I should have the same "right" to rid myself of responsibility that she had, that is bad.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 08:17 PM
craigsub, anything that will improve your communication skills would be welcome - as it seems you are frequently misunderstood.

"What I am saying (perhaps I need to use smaller words) is that we live in a society that exercises selective assignment of responsibility. According to guys like you...

1. If she had killed the fetus, that is ok.

2. If she Has the child, and wants to keep the child, that is ok.

3. If I voice an opinion that since it was HER choice to keep the child, that I should have the same "right" to rid myself of responsibility that she had, that is bad."

It is ridiculous to assert that a man should have the power to tell a woman to have an abortion. It is equally ridiculous to assert that the father of a child should have the option to financially support the child or not.

You were correct earlier to state that your "choice" came at the moment of conception.

BTW, did you remember to calculate lost interest into that $200K? Your actual cost might be significantly higher.
Posted By: twodan19 Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 08:35 PM
bigwill, if i understand him, there should have been options:
1. we screwed up, have the kid, we both pay
2. abort, split cost of procedure
3. she chooses to have child, he doesn't, she pays
4. he chooses to have child, she doesn't he pays
craig, did i understand you to mean something like this?
dan
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 08:52 PM
twodan, You are right, with the addition that this argument is centered around the concept that everyone in society should be treated equally by laws.

In this case, people are not treated equally. Men are treated differently than women. For example, Why is it that the woman automatically gets the child ? All the man does is pay... with no rights applied.

It is the LAW ... and I abided by the law...

But if we are going to treat EVERYONE the same... then it needs to be across the board.




Posted By: twodan19 Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 08:55 PM
craig, be thankful you don't live in massachusetts. every divorce ends with the guy getting screwed here. didn't happen to me, but again the laws tend to be tipped in favor of the female.
Posted By: Huffer Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 08:55 PM
Craigsub, I totally agree with you on this one.
You know what a feminist is? A woman who wants equal rights until it's not in her best interest.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 09:15 PM
Twodan, The situation I was in was not even a divorce, but knowing Massachusetts as I do, I can easily imagine how anti-male the laws are there... we call your state "The People's Republic of Massachusetts"...
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 09:18 PM
I guess it's my turn to say, "Wow".

Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 09:19 PM
Huffer ... My lovely wife, accomplished attorney turned homemaker/office manager for my company, would agree with you.

She has been to a couple support hearing with me, and got to see first hand the treatment I received. When the "case manager" referred to me as the "rapist" I thought my wife was going to punch her...
Posted By: md55 Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 09:23 PM
I believe we need to include the understanding that equal treatment under the law also requires equivalent fact sets. Some circumstances are inherently unequal. What a mother and a father provide a child are not identical or interchangable. The mother might claim that while all the effort you had to make was to pay for support while she spend years of time and effort raising the child and perhaps making other sacrifices. The child might ask where was the equal treatment of growing up without his physical father?

I believe your choice in the matter came in the moments leading up to conception. After that there is no real equality in the facts. The judge has a duty to society and the dependant child to do what is in his or her power to make the best of a less than ideal situation. At that point the judge probably doesn’t really care who thinks the situation is fair other than the child, who most likely never will.

Most of us who have been to court have been disabused of the idea that what happens there is very often fair. I’m sure it felt very unfair to have been lied to and perhaps used in the first place. One of the great hazards of youth is we rarely understand the potential consequences of seemingly trivial acts, even when we think we are acting responsibly.

Under the circumstances I think you deserve acknowledgment for having supported the child financially.

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 09:24 PM
I don't meant to quash the child support responsibility and rights dialog, so please continue.

On an international front, what is everyone's thoughts on this story? It looks like the Russians are getting in bed with the Israelis on the terrorism front. I'm not sure how I feel about this.....Is this a good thing to have the Russians getting into the battle?.....Is this a dangerous thing to have another power insert itself into the Israeli/Muslim conflict, one that might not be as conservative in it's handling of it? We have for a long time kept Israel at our side, but at a distance. There's a part of me that's concerned that this relationship could lead to some added animosity towards Israel should the Russians in turn go and beat the crap out of the Chechians (sp?)....which could eventually lead to some larger conflicts.

This is a pretty complicated issue w/ different influences and dynamics, so I'm not sure if I know enough to see what's going to result. It just gave me a minute of pause.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 09:51 PM
MD - There is no judge involved... It is a case worker, or in Pa... they are called a "Master" ... They do not care about anything other than paternity and how much they will order the man to pay. Period.

There is no mechanism to ensure that even one penny goes to the child. The "EXCUSE" that the laws are there to protect the children is pure bullshit. If the mother wants to spend money on drugs, cigarettes, clothes, or on anything else she pleases, the State could not care less.


Posted By: Michael_A Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 10:20 PM
In reply to:

Invading Iraq, however, was not retaliation and even Bush needed "permission" before proceeding. This permission came from the countries that allied themselves with us. We would not have gone into Iraq if we had to do it totally alone... ...at least get your events straight.




The facts that I am basing my arguments on are the same as ones documented in Britannica Online

"Though justified by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on grounds that Kuwait was historically part of Iraq, the invasion was presumed to be motivated by Iraq's desire to acquire Kuwait's rich oil fields and expand its power in the region. The United States, fearing Iraq's broader strategic intentions and acting under UN auspices, eventually formed a broad coalition, which included a number of Arab countries, and began massing troops in northern Saudi Arabia. When Iraq ignored a UN Security Council deadline for it to withdraw from Kuwait, the coalition began a large-scale air offensive (Jan. 16–17, 1991). Saddam responded by launching ballistic missiles against neighbouring coalition states as well as Israel. A ground offensive by the coalition (February 24–28) quickly achieved victory. Estimates of Iraqi military deaths range up to 100,000; coalition forces lost about 300 troops. The war also caused extensive damage to the region's environment. The Iraqi regime subsequently faced widespread popular uprisings, which it brutally suppressed. A UN trade embargo remained in effect after the end of the conflict, pending Iraq's compliance with the terms of the armistice. The foremost term was that Iraq destroy its nuclear-, biological-, and chemical-weapons programs. The embargo continued into the 21st century and ceased only after the Second Persian Gulf War.(2003) International conflict that took place between Iraq and a combined force of troops from the United States and Great Britain, with smaller contingents from several other countries.

The trade embargo and weapons-inspection process that the UN imposed on Iraq following the First Persian Gulf War (1990–91) had partly fallen into abeyance by 2001. U.S. Pres. George W. Bush argued that the September 11 attacks on the U.S. in that same year highlighted the threat to U.S. security posed by hostile countries such as Iraq. Encouraged by Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the UN issued Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002, demanding that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors and comply with all previous resolutions. Although Iraqi did readmit inspectors, Bush and Blair declared in early 2003 (despite objections by many world leaders) that Iraq was continuing to hinder UN inspections and that it still retained proscribed weapons. On March 20, seeking no further UN resolutions, the U.S. and Britain (with token representation from other countries) launched a series of air attacks on Iraq, and a ground invasion followed.
"

Now, I did elude to the fact that we "retaliated" against Bin Laden when we took out Saddam, but the written historical record shows that 9-11 was just a triggering event that lead to us taking action on Saddam's violation of the the 1991 armistice earlier than we otherwise would have. Ok... I should have been more specific there. My apologies. I presume that we agree that when a country signs a peace armistice with the UN, that they should honor the terms of that armistice. I also think that most of us would agree that failure to follow the terms of an armistice, returns the warring parties back to the state they were in before the armistice was signed and ignored - war. I do not believe that the US & UK needed any additional permission to continue the hostilities that were already approved by the original UN Coalition. The armistice was a protracted cease fire, and it was violated by Saddam. The other countries simply walked away before the job was done. It's not our fault that they won't come back to finsh what they willingly participated in at the start of the Gulf War. I don't really see it as Gulf War 1 & Gulf War 2. It is like we had halftime in Gulf War 1. This war is just the end of a long cease fire.

The corruption within the U.N., and the countries that were receiving kickbacks from Saddam will be a huge scandal this winter. France, Russia, and Germany (or the UN representatives of those countries) were being paid off by Saddam with the money that he got for selling oil that was supposed to be buying food and medicine for the Iraqi people - The "Oil for Food" prorgam.

So we have:
1- Saddam is stonewalling the UN on the WMD inspections front
2- At the same time, Saddam is paying off the UN officials capable of initiating the actions spelled out in UN 1441.
3- Both Saddam AND the UN officials involved are making money hand over fist by siphoning money off of the "UN approved" oil sales program.

All they have to do to protect this arrangement is keep the status quo. Saddam defiantly snubs the UN, the US pushes for armistice compliance, the UN reaffirms the embargo (trapping the Iraqi people in a situation that they can not change), oil for food, kickback money to UN officials, rinse, repeat...

This sort of stuff normally makes left leaning folks go ballistic. Rich folks making outrageous profits off of the pain and suffering of poor people, while stealing their precious national resources at the same time. Why doesn't this anger you? All you seem to care about is making President Bush look like the bad guy. Given the events described above, he mounted a RESCUE, not an occupation.

I think the kicker of this scandal is going to be that we find out someone at the UN fed Saddam the invastion date, and he had sufficient notice, and possibly even UN help in secreting his WMDs off to another counrty, or under the sand somewhere in Iraq. This thing is gonna bust wide open, proving the UN is corrupt, Saddam had WMDs, and the terrorists fighting us in Iraq now are really Al Queada. It's going to be a hat trick for the Prez.
In reply to:

So if you say Kerry would wait to ask for permission before retaliating after an attack on our soil...


Yes, I am saying that because he himself said it, on 2 or 3 occasions. I've also seen him on TV saying the exact opposite, that he wouldn't ask the UN for permission. Ok... I say that 50% of the time Kerry would act immediately, and 50% of the time, he'd ask Zimbabwe and France for permission. I really just don't know, and he certainly hasn't made it any easier for me to understand his position. The only real question is, "Do I feel lucky?".
Posted By: littleb Re: Holy crap - 09/15/04 11:53 PM
When is this thread going to die. It's gone on longer than that time I used the 'b' word. Geesh!
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/16/04 01:34 AM
craigsub, I've been at work all day and unable to really devote any time to this subject. I'm very glad that you have supported the child financially. No matter how the lady spent the money, the child is better off for you sending it to her.
But to modify child support laws to the point where any guy who claims, "I didn't want the kid, so don't send me the bill", can get out of paying child support would basically eliminate child support.
Friggin' A! Now I'm burning dinner. LAter.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/16/04 02:31 AM
BigWill... If there were sane laws regarding child support, the young lady would have had food, clothes, insurance... all the basics... and about $80,000 in the bank for college...

Instead... Her mother has been driving new cars.

Yep... You are right... a GREAT friggin system.

And of course, had the mother decided this child should have been killed, THAT is ok with everybody...

Hope you have pizza delivery...
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/16/04 04:27 AM
How about something we can agree on?
I'm sure you've already read it, but Rich Lowry's recent tongue-in-cheek piece on Kerry's "nuanced" Iraq position(s) is a quick, funny read:

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry.asp
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/16/04 11:29 AM
BigWill... I will check it out later. Thanks...
Posted By: md55 Re: Holy crap - 09/16/04 07:13 PM
My understanding is a Master (in California) is a "judge" with limited powers and jurisdiction to take the workload off full judges. Your point though is a good example of what I was saying about no interest in fairness. The legal system is almost a mindless machine for rendering decisions. I think that while you may be righ about the "excuse" is to protect the child, the real purpose is to protect the state...from paying, for welfare etc. If the mother has a demonstrated income from child support she won't qualify for welfare.

I made the mistake of believing idealistically that the courts were for doing justice. What I learned is that they are in many respects the worst of government mechanisms, rendering nothing more than finality to disagreements.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 08:01 AM
In reply to:

PMB - Welcome to our side...


Oh hoh hoh! No no. Stating the facts does not mean I support the decision. Watch out for a lashing here.

While the government is spending billions of dollars fighting a Global War on Terror abroad, it is leaving domestic security seriously underfunded. You may have heard about The Maritime Transportation Security Act, passed by Congress in 2002, and designed to help get our nation's ports more secure. But did you know that it completely lacks any mechanism for funding? That means that even though many ports know what they need to do to get more secure, they don't have the money to do it, and the funding ain't coming anytime soon. That makes the act completely useless.

So how big a risk is an unsecure port? A single container ship, or even a single container on a ship goes boom in one of our major ports, and it's dirty bomb clean-up time, at worst. At best, the port will have to be shut down until the problem is sorted out. A closed major port would be devastating to countless industries that rely on global trade.

Port security is a major part of securing the homeland. It cannot be ignored.

Sure, we've taken the fight TO our enemies, but we haven't even taken it to our #1 enemy: Al Qaeda. And what has happened to decrease the chances of a devastating attack occuring on our soil again, by this #1 enemy or anyone else? Not much. Homeland Security is a buzzword, nothing more. Words without action.

Do you really think the fact that we are in Iraq is a deterrent for terrorists? Remember the type of enemy we're dealing with here.

Still feel safer?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 11:37 AM
Let us see... I spent some time with our director of Homeland security this summer at a function here. He lives less than 2 miles from us. Good golfer, too.

About 1/2 the budget and policies are classified, including ports, Nuclear plants, and commercial (as in Fed Ex) flights.

PM - Would you have Mr. Ridge send Al Queda a blueprint outlining all their policies and strategies ?

I will be blunt here, people. IF YOU BUY ALL THE BULLSHIT BEING PUT OUT IN THE MEDIA, YOU ARE AT THE MINIMUM IGNORANT, AND POSSIBLT A MORON.

Listen to Tom Ridge for a few hours, and you will realize Michael Moores is an IDIOT.
Posted By: ringmir Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 11:51 AM
See, it's precisely the classified information that makes me think I should just leave the issue be. Working on the missile defense system really drives this home for me. A large percentage of the stuff I work on is classified. The things I hear in the media regarding interceptor tests and the initial system going into place are lacking in *so* much information that they often completely misrepresent the entire program. I've learned to ignore them, but they are the only image into the missile defense system that your typical citizen gets. That person probably never even considers that they're getting less than 2% of the real picture. When it comes to the DoD, the information you can actually get is never, ever, more than one small piece in a huge puzzle.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 12:30 PM
And for clarification, By IDIOT I am referring to ANYONE who looks at a report and says "Wow, look at what THIS guys says about what we are doing in our _____________ ... (fill in blank)" ... And people will then grasp a hold of it and think it is now fact.

There was an article yesterday .... Headline "US Inspector Says No WMD's in IRAQ" ... the two main points of the article...

1. That they did not find stockpiles. Well, Every ounce of Anthrax, Mustard Gas... ALL of Iraq's WMD's that WERE there in 1991 would fit into a high school gymnasium. The UN used that for a size reference. Iraq is the size of California, with over 1/2 being desert... HOW hard would it be to hide that small amount of materials...

2. They DID find labs lying dormant waiting for the WEST to lose interest, so Iraq could resume building its biological and Chemical stockpiles without scrutiny. NOTE the HEADLINE ignored the most important FACT about IRAQ...

The UN's resolutions called for the destruction of BOTH the current capacity (important) AND all the equipment to produce MORE stockpiles of WMD's - even MORE important.

One item Mr. Ridge DID point out (and one our so-called "media" gleefully ignores) is that chemical weapons have a "shelf Life" ... and NEED to be replaced quite often. HAVING the facilities remaining viable was a FAR GREATER threat than the stockpiles.

Here is a question for anyone to try... What was the method used to make US Chemical Weapons, and why was this important ?
Posted By: Michael_A Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 12:38 PM
Whenever the US military allows us to see any of their high tech stuff, you have to remember that you are now looking at "old news". There is always something even more advanced than what they allow us to see in use.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 12:46 PM
"What was the method used to make US Chemical Weapons, and why was this important?"

Beyond pouring some chlorine and ammonia into a shell . I have no idea, but I'm curious.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 01:05 PM
They are binary rounds. Two completely inert compunds in two separate chambers. The only way that they became lethal was when, under pressure and at the proper ambient tempature, the two chambers were mixed together while the warhead was in the air.

Which is one reason why you did not see the types of problems with our Chemical weapons that the Russians had...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 06:41 PM
In reply to:

About 1/2 the budget and policies are classified, including ports, Nuclear plants, and commercial (as in Fed Ex) flights.

PM - Would you have Mr. Ridge send Al Queda a blueprint outlining all their policies and strategies ?

I will be blunt here, people. IF YOU BUY ALL THE BULLSHIT BEING PUT OUT IN THE MEDIA, YOU ARE AT THE MINIMUM IGNORANT, AND POSSIBLY A MORON.


And if you buy all the bullshit being put out by the White House, you're too gullible and trusting of people who don't think the truth is that important.

I'm specifically speaking about port security. I'm not sure where your "send al Qaeda a blueprint" comment came from. I don't need to have the details of what is being done to know whether or not something substantive is being done to secure our ports. The fact is that most major commercial ports STILL don't check any more containers than they did 3 years ago. Why? Because they lack the money, the manpower, and the means.

Are you trying to tell me that they really ARE checking more containers, but they don't want the enemy to know so we can catch them red-handed?
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 08:18 PM
A friend of mine had a nice old 30' boat at the very back of Long Beach harbor on the industrial side. We would pass by all the offloading operations and see all the huge ships tied up, more coming and going. The world's busiest harbor apparently.
From what I saw, it would be impossible (in practical terms) to search all those containers. The harbor is definitely vulnerable.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 09:01 PM
PMB - Spend a few hours with Mr. Ridge, then tell me how gullible I am. The man knows his stuff, does not seek publicity for it, and made some great points.

He was asked about port security, and many steps have been taken to allow for safety.

And If all the steps being taken by the Homeland security people was published to make guys like you feel safer, that would be sending Al Quaeda a blueprint.

All those "un-biased" media groups you love would be VERY happy to print as much as possible.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 09:23 PM
In November, 2001, at the urging of the US, new maritime standards were introduced in order to increase safety in all three areas, export ports, on the sea lanes, and import ports.

Some enhancements :

1. X-Ray machines on all cruise ships.
2. New security cameras and restricted areas.
3. Stricter certification programs for foreign ships.
4. Placing all local law enforcement for our local ports with the US Coast Guard so they could better coordinate efforts.
5. Inspecting every container coming into the US. - Today, 2/3rd's of containers are inspected at the foreign port before leaving. This is an international effort.

In Transent, all containers will have "smart locks" on them, which will show whether they have been tampered with.

In our ports, $556 million has been budgeted for X-Ray machines which can scan a 40 foot container in less than one minute. They also receive a 96 hour notice from each ship coming in, and the Coast guard analyzes the threat possibility on each ship, and is regularly checking for containers without proper smart lock technology.

This is a small slice of the efforts being taken to make sure ports are safe.

Any specific questions ?

Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/17/04 11:46 PM
I hope it works. There is a constant, massive stream of those shipping containers on railroad cars and big rig trailers heading out of here to points all over the US. Looks like a daunting task.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/18/04 11:22 AM
BigWill... I am sure that mistakes are being made, there IS still the human element here.

PMB - They have caught 9000 illegals to date, and are checking the majority of containers. Your statement that "no more containers are being checked out now than three years ago" was false, if I was you, I would be pretty annoyed at the person who told me this bilge.

As for "catching them red handed" ... In World War II, before D-Day, We went to great lengths to make sure the Germans thought the landing was taking place in Calais with Patton at the helm. It is a very basic concept in war that you do NOT tell the enemy what you are doing.
Posted By: Ajax Whom Do you believe? - 09/18/04 01:24 PM
Double, double, toil and trouble!

Whom do you believe? Bush?

Whom do you Believe? Kerry?


Posted By: craigsub Re: Whom Do you believe? - 09/18/04 02:09 PM
Jack, Did you know that they count jobs by how many people are in the workforce ? There Were 137,000,000 people employed in Jan. 2001... Today there are 139,500,000 employed (as of Aug 31) ... That is a 2.5 million gain, right ?

Wrong... Since 3.4 million people entered the workforce, it is a 900,000 loss.

Gotta love Government think.


Posted By: BigWill Re: Whom Do you believe? - 09/18/04 04:12 PM
Those were good links Jack. Numbers can be confusing, especially when it comes to economics, and especially especially when the numbers are being used by politicians.

I like the straight talk you get from the gov't economists though. The lady that said outsourcing is not a big deal, that it is part of a dynamic economy, is talking straight. We are going to lose jobs to developing countries as they progress - the alternative would be stifling their economic development through protectionist policies and/or using those countries only for raw materials. Some people credit that tendency in the past for some of the current animosity of poor nations towards the US.
What all that progress in the third world means for US workers is that they need to be retrained in more value added industry (hi-tech, aerospace, etc...). In practice it appears that most of the job growth is in service industries, however.
On an individual level it can be painful for the manufacturing worker who loses his job, but it is progress. Unless of course, we all just start crying and demand gov't assistance, then we're just screwed.
I'm telling everybody stuff thay already know, huh?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Whom Do you believe? - 09/18/04 04:58 PM
BigWill... Careful, We are agreeing again... In 1910, I am sure some people in the horse and buggy trade were pretty upset at the loss of jobs when the auto was becoming popular.

Then there is the eBay debate going on. I personally know three guys who left $70,000 to $100,000 jobs to start an eBay biz... they are all making $100,000 or more from their house... I thought they were nuts for quitting their jobs, but it works great for them.

In another case, a business associate's wife quit a job as paralegal, and is doing the eBay gig... None of these counts as jobs...
Posted By: BigWill Re: Whom Do you believe? - 09/18/04 06:17 PM
My wife quit her job and has mentioned selling stuff on eBay to make $. I don't know what she'd sell - maybe some of my old speaker wires rewrapped and marketed as "audiophile" quality?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Whom Do you believe? - 09/18/04 08:33 PM
The scary thing is she would likely make a fortune. Go to Lowes, and Buy some 12 guage stuff, seal it in shrink wrap, and deliver it in dry ice ala Omaha Steaks...

If she needs a partner, let me know ...
Posted By: INANE Re: Whom Do you believe? - 09/20/04 05:25 AM
Since I work 5 mins away from Omaha Steaks perhaps I should just quit my job, go buy em there and ship em out myself via ebay?



Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 07:41 AM
In reply to:

It is a very basic concept in war


Do you mean the War on Terror, the War on Iraq, or the War on Drugs. There are just too many to keep track of these days.

I think we should declare a War on Complacency so that all those people who never vote get off their butts this election, but that might just desensitize them to the fact that War = death and violence (by and for both sides).
Posted By: craigsub Re: Whom Do you believe? - 09/20/04 03:36 PM
Sounds like a good business model to me...
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 03:39 PM
PMB - You are right. People on BOTH sides die in war. Unless we follow the French model and do nothing.

Then only people on OUR side die...
Posted By: dmn23 Re: Whom Do you believe? - 09/20/04 03:44 PM
In reply to:

I personally know three guys who left $70,000 to $100,000 jobs to start an eBay biz... they are all making $100,000 or more from their house... I thought they were nuts for quitting their jobs, but it works great for them.




Clearly I'm in the wrong business. What are they selling?
Posted By: craigsub Re: Whom Do you believe? - 09/20/04 03:55 PM
One is selling watches, One is going to estates and selling stuff he buys there, and the third won't say...
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 05:17 PM
Perhaps we should take different slant and only let those people vote that have a clue....perhaps an entrance exam. The problems we have is that we have an electorate that is apathetic and often ignorant. Perhaps if we made it difficult to actually vote, people might just get off their a$$es, put down the damn cup cakes, and educate themselves on civic responsibility and the issues that make up the platforms of each candidate. Everyone goes ra ra ra and tries to get everyone to get out and vote.....Perhaps we should reconsider trying to recruit the idiot drones and focus more on those that have some semblance of a clue about the responsibilities of being a voter in a democracy/republic.

...end sermon/rant.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 05:36 PM
And maybe if the Repubs and Dems would stop recruiting "idiot drones" as their candidates for office the more informed of the electorate might get excited about their choices. Sorry couldn't resist.
Posted By: craigsub Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 05:52 PM
Remember "No taxation without Representation ?" ... How about "No Representation without taxation" ? ... If you don't pay Federal Income taxes... you do not vote.
Posted By: dmn23 Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 06:23 PM
Sounds like a recipe for unprecedented apathy to me.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 06:39 PM
turbodog- looks like you need a bottle and a new diaper!!!

bigjohn
Posted By: jorge016 Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 06:59 PM
One of my twins looks just like that, but only between 10:00 PM and 1:00 AM!
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 10:13 PM
"...but that might just desensitize them to the fact that War = death and violence (by and for both sides)."

In all seriousness, I wonder what the future would have held for us had we not responded to 9-11 by going to war in Afghanistan, and then continuing the liberation of the Muslim world with the invasion of Iraq.
If, after 9-11, we had just mourned for a while and shrugged it off - what would the world be like today? How would future events have played out differently than they are going to now?
BTW, Kerry's done - put a fork in him.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/20/04 11:17 PM
Did I at any time say we should not have gone into Afghanistan?
In reply to:

...continuing the liberation of the Muslim world...


Hmmm. If you take Afghanistan as an example of liberation of the Muslin world, then I really hope Iraq ends up faring much better. As it stands now, we shoud return to Afghanistan since most of it seems to have "unliberated" iteself.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 12:19 AM
From your quote I cited above, I inferred that you were simply against any and all war.

I just read an on-line article about the latest beheading of an American in Iraq. If I hear one more asinine comment about how peaceful Islam is, or how the resistance in Iraq are "freedom fighters", "patriots", or "just protecting their homeland", I'm going to puke. I'm at a loss for words. Not only from the article I read and the stills from the beheading, but from the continued denial and apparent de-sensitization of people in our own country who cannot seem to realize how nasty that part of the world - and the people who inhabit it - are. It's sickening. They're decapitating our countrymen and the headlines will probably be some crap about Abu Gharib and how Rumsfeld should be fired or what Dan Rather says about old lady Knox. What a bunch of bullshit.
Those countries all suck. Why don't THEY take steps to ensure the safety and prosperity of their Muslim brethren? They support continued, pointless terrorism because they're a bunch of scumbags with no respect for human life or happiness.

Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 12:45 AM
Green Glass.
Posted By: INANE Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 04:43 AM
Changing gears a lil... what about 3rd party canidates (other than just Nader)

Michael Badnarik

Question session on Slashdot

I become more Libertarian everyday :-/

Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 04:50 AM
I dunno. Every Libertarian I've ever met has been a real nutcase - except myself of course.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 04:50 AM
In reply to:

Not only from the article I read and the stills from the beheading, but from the continued denial and apparent de-sensitization of people in our own country who cannot seem to realize how nasty that part of the world - and the people who inhabit it - are. It's sickening.


Beheading IS sickening. It's downright evil. People who commit such acts are barely deserving of the word human.

However -- you knew this was coming -- I urge you to focus your anger toward the perpetrators and not broaden it to include all the people who inhabit that part of the world.
In reply to:

If I hear one more asinine comment about how peaceful Islam is, or how the resistance in Iraq are "freedom fighters", "patriots", or "just protecting their homeland", I'm going to puke.


Get your bucket ready. If you look at the balance of history, people who follow Islam, and not militant fundamentalists who put forth their own flavor of Islam, are peaceful.

The people behind the resistance in Iraq, the ones who are pulling the strings, are motivated more by POLITICS than religion. Islam is not the enemy.

I hate having to be the only voice of reason around here, especially since it makes me look like I don't care about American lives. I DO care about each American life lost. I just can't sit back and watch people foment rabid anti-Islamic hatred and say nothing to attempt to curb it.

As wise old Yoda once said, "Fear leads to Anger.  Anger leads to Hate.  Hate leads to suffering."
Posted By: INANE Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 05:00 AM
I have to say I'm getting tired of hearing all about how peaceful Islam is... actions speak much louder than words in this case.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 05:17 AM
So the actions of a few who identify themselves as Muslim reflect upon ALL Muslims?

Folks, what we have here is yet another reductionist fallacy. It's logically no different than saying all African Americans are criminals, or all Native Americans are drunks.

Not once did I say all Muslims are peaceful. I said Islam is a peaceful religion. Don't slam an entire polulation because some of its members are violent.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 06:19 AM
They are not a "few," PMB. The Koran and Hadiths speak proudly of beheading unbelievers, making temporary truces (Hudna) until the faithful are strong enough to kill their "peace" partners, slavery, sexual slavery, Holy War ... Please PMB, don't put a happy face on this murderous rampage against civilization. Who are the terrorists in the world? Who murdered the children of Belsan, of Ma'alot? Who brought down the twin towers? Who beheaded Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Armstrong, etc., etc.? Who cheered when the towers came down? Who is conducting the genocide of Darfur? Where is slavery still a strong institution? If someone refuses to admit something is seriously wrong with the civilization which espouses these values, values of murder, theft, slavery, calculated deceit ... then such a person is an apologist for these practices.

What kind of religious "authority" makes "Fatwas" religious legal edits, of death for someone like Salman Rushdi, for writing a book, but is thunderously silent, refuses to issue a single Fatwah against those who murder children, or Osama Bin Laden or Al Zarqawi, for the mass murder of those in the twin towers?

I know, PMB, you are quick to condemn the US for our policies, and accuse us of murder, and suggest that to fight terrorism is as bad as terrorism because all war is killing, but that value structure ignores the difference between the policeman and the murderer who have a shoot out with each other.

These murderers are not madmen who arise out of nothing - they are committed practitioners of their faith, a faith which condones murder. They are Islamic Jihadists, and Jihad is a requirement of that faith. The issue is what constitutes normative values for a given civilization, not whether there are good people in every civilization.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 06:39 AM
You say this because you are living at this point in history. Turn back the clock a bit and it's Christians doing the killing. Turn it back further and it's someone else.
In reply to:

These murderers are not madmen who arise out of nothing - they are committed practitioners of their faith, a faith which condones murder. They are Islamic Jihadists, and Jihad is a requirement of that faith.


Bullshit. You are blinded by hatred and fear. Next I suppose you'll call for all Muslims living in America to be rounded up into camps. After all, how can we tell the difference between "faithful practitioners of their faith" and those that just like to call themselves Muslim but don't really believe in killing, hmm?

Keep it up 2x6. You are adding fuel to the fire.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 06:54 AM
Correct, PMB, I'm living at "this point in history." I don't live 500 years ago, or a 1000 years ago, or in the Pleistocene. I don't compare our society to Genghis Khan's, or the piles of human skulls left across the plains of scorched civilizations, to make excuses for today's murderers.

It's not "bullshit." Todays terrorists are Muslim. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but they can claim every terrorist of note in the world today. You attempt to show that they're not so bad, that someone else is or was as bad. True, Christianity has a bloody history, but it has progressed greatly. Our society is civilized, it has renounced slavery, it is tolerant. Do you think Muslim societies are tolerant of other religions? It's not hatred, to say this, it is what it is. When Islam can be self critical, take responsibility for its murderers and do something about them, rise up and reject them, then you can compare Islam to Christianity.

No, I'm not in favor of "rounding up" Muslims and putting them "into camps." I am in favor of strict scrutiny and surveillance, and strict restrictions on immigration. I am in favor of ethnic profiling at airports and points of entry. Islamic terrorists tend to be ... though politically incorrect to say, Islamic. Time to wake up. Also time for those who call "themselves Muslim but don't really believe in killing," to turn on those who do instead of on those who complain about the murderous practitioners of that faith - those who murder in the name of that faith. Beslan, almost 200 children murdered, some of them shot, some of them raped then killed - violence against Christians. Take a look at the world - the margins of Islam is a ring of fire and death. Who is at war with Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, animists, Zoroastrians, B'hais? There is a war against the world - a religious war. Renounce it! Condemn it! Don't make excuses for it or say what's happening isn't really happening.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 11:51 AM
PM - I think I have to side w/ these guys on this. I think that we all agree that there are practicing Muslims around the world that want to live peaceful lives like the rest of us. However, at this juncture in world history, Islam is solely responsible for a vast amount of terror, suffering, and hatred. You ask us to separate the religion from our hatred for the terrorists. The problem with that request is that their religion forms the underpinning of their quest. I was talking about this with my Dad this weekend.....They aren't fighting simply to get us out of their region....they are not fighting for the "little guy" on the street....they are fighting because they hate us.....they are fighting because we are infidel that threatens to disrupt/corrupt their Muslim existence. If you believe that, then it's difficult to separate the two.

Also, as others have stated, I don't see any part of the Muslim world standing up and condemning what has been done in the past and what is still going on at the hands of these animals. Hell, I don't remember even seeing it from any Muslim groups here in the US...even after 9/11. Until that changes, I see no reason to cut them any slack. They have a radical segment of their religion that is committing atrocities around the world and they don't have the balls to stand up and say to the world that it is wrong and is not indicative of Islam's core tenets. It's pathetic.

2X6 - Honest question: Where did you learn so much about the region, the politics, the history, etc? As we have seen numerous times in this thread, you have a substantial understanding of the region, both past and present. So, I was just curious whether it was from a college major or simply from personal education (ie Internet, Media).

INANE - I think that there are quite a few of us here that either consider ourselves to be Libertarian or at least maintain views that are in line with the Libertarian party. Personally, I think that the party will not gain any major headway in our political system until they grow up and back-burner the legalize hemp/marijuana argument. I will assert that there are many that believe in this argument, even on the left and right. However, I think that this issue marginalized the party, because it's a petty issue when considered in the context of terrorism, social security, taxes, and the economy. Yes, it should be a long-term goal for the party, but it certainly should not remain at the center of the party's platform. If it does, the Libertarian party has no chance of attaining any level of prominence.
Posted By: Riffman Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 01:28 PM
I think its quite unbelievable the talk of tolerant, peaceful, modern Islam when every Arab country kicked the Jews out of their country 50 years ago (as compared to the 1 million Palestinians who are Israeli citizens). And Syria and Iran continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas. Give me a break!

I enjoyed 2X6spds comments about living in today's world, not during the Crusades or any other time. I am so sick of people trying to mitigate what some Islamists do today by making a meaningless comparison to the past. Talk about a fallacy if there ever was one.


Posted By: Riffman Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 01:42 PM
and if anyone wants to realize what a sham the UN is, all they have to do is look at how Russia and China opposed sanctions for Sudan because they have oil interests there that will be affected. talk about blood for oil. sheesh!

And, German newspaper Die Welt reported that Syria used chemical weapons in Sudan in conjunction with the Sudanese Arabs.

Sudan and its Arab 'genociders' still sit on the UN human rights council.

...but none of this matters as much as it should because we of the west killed a bunch of Arabs almost a thousand years ago.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 05:35 PM
Everybody in the world knows (including the terrorists) we want to get our guys out of Iraq ASAP. The quickest and easiest way for everyone to get that to happen would be to support the fledgling democratic gov't in Iraq, support fair elections in Iraq, and stop supporting the "insurgents". However, a stable democratic Iraq would be an acknowledgement of the US power to shape events in the middle east in a positive way, and an acknowledgement of the rights of Moslem people to have representative gov't in a part of the world where that is frowned upon. So they continue to blow people up?
If the people of Islam are so peaceful, peace loving, and noble, then they must certainly be deserving of the blessings of democracy - don't you think, pmb? Some people don't think a democracy in Iraq is possible. Is there something in their religion or otherwise present in their culture, which prevents the countries in the area from having anything but cruel despotic gov'ts that not only oppress their own people and threaten the security of their neighbors, but give rise to dangerous fanatics that have shown their intent to kill innocent civilians in the west?
If we let the despots and theocracies continue to flourish in the Middle East, there will be no doubt as to whether Islam is a peaceful religion or not.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 05:59 PM
The UN General Assembly (190 members) is dominated by the 54 Muslim countries and the non-aligned nations which together control the General Assembly. The 115 non-aligned nations have much in common with each other - for the most part they are impoverished, debt ridden states run by thugs, which hate America. In this regard, they obviously have much in common with the Muslim voting bloc nations of the UN.

This fierce alliance has established the moral agenda of the UN. Silent on the Arab genocide against blacks in Darfur, Muslim massacres in Nigeria, Chad, thunderously silent on the genocide in Rwanda, absolutely silent as to the rampant slavery in Sudan, Somalia, Chad, Nigeria, etc. etc etc!!! Nevertheless, this is the group which passed the Zionism is Racism UN resolution (eventually repealed), which has hijacked UNESCO which now debates the problem brought to the UN's attention by Arab states, including Syria, accusing Jews of using the blood of Muslim children for the manufacture of Matzoh, the unleavened Passover bread. This is the same group and organization which is thuderously silent as to the horrible near slave status of women in Muslim societies, the appalling levels of ignorance, illiteracy among Muslim populations in general and the incredible illeteracy levels among Muslim women worldwide. Yet, the cry of moral outrage heard from this coallition of Muslim and Non-Aligned states is directed against the United States and Israel. Go figure!

Here is an interesting petition to the UN:

_____________________________

Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights : An International Civil Rights Movement for the Victims of Jihad and Islamization

Petition to the United Nations Against Religious Apartheid:

To: H.E. the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan;

The Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights is an umbrella coalition representing various organizations from the following communities: Arab-Christian, Armenian, Assyrian, Bahai, Buddhist, Copt, Hindu, Humanist Muslim, Ibo, Maronite, Nubian, secular intellectuals, Southern Filipino, Slavic-Christian, Southern Sudanese, Syriac, West African, and women's groups.

We gather to demonstrate our determination to protest the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, as well as women and moderate and secularized Muslims in Islamic lands. We are here also to cry out against the murderous ideology of radical Islamism, which, by dividing humankind into worthy Muslims and inferior "infidels" is wreaking havoc throughout the world.

In the face of growing attacks and oppression of religious and ethnic minorities in Islamic lands, we respectfully make the following two demands upon the appropriate organs of the United Nations:

1. We call upon you today to appoint a Special Rapporteur to investigate the status and conditions of non-Muslim minorities, women, and humanist, moderate Muslims in states ruled by Islamic majorities. Such a rappoteur must investigate the following conditions.

Equality Under Law: What is the status, both in law and in practice, of these groups, and of individuals belonging to these groups? Do the laws in these nations discriminate against religious minorities? Do members of these groups have the same rights to assemble, speak, publish, and associate as those in the majority? Can members of these classes be elected to governmental and representative bodies? Is there a government policy of discriminating against the hiring of members of these classes? Does the government allow or encourage radical anti-minority organizations to abuse, threaten or otherwise oppress minority populations? Do the agencies that enforce the laws represent all groups in society?

Religious rights and freedom: Do members of minority faiths have the right to practice their faiths freely? Do they have the right to proselytize? Do members of the majority faith have the right to choose another faith?

Cultural equality: Are the rights and cultures of national, religious, and ethnic minorities respected?

Teaching of hatred and contempt: What is the view of these classes promoted by the government and the general culture?

2. We call upon the United Nations to condemn the ideology of Jihad-Islamism as a form of religious apartheid, which divides humankind into exalted Muslims and inferior "infidels."

Radical Jihad-Islamism is a supremacist, quasi-racist ideology that is now waging terrorist war worldwide against innocent men, women and children it labels "infidels." This ideology is supporting religious wars against non-Islamist Muslims and non-Muslim infidels worldwide. It is seeking to establish Apartheid-like regimes similar to those in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, to subjugate and control "infidels." It legitimizes and extends human rights abuses - including slavery - on a massive scale. It employs a global economic resource (oil) as a weapon against non-Muslim nations in the service of its goals. It is the duty of the United Nations, which came into being as a result of racist Nazism, to condemn and to combat any ideology which defines some part of the human race as inferior.

Radical Jihad-Islamism must be condemned as a form of cultural, racial, religious and ethnic discrimination, and the United Nations should equate it with Colonialism and Imperialism. It should condemn its teaching to any community or school and it should call for a "corrective teaching" to seek to undo the hatred that it has engendered in peoples who have been taught the ideology. Further, the U.N. should condemn all current Jihad wars and call on nations waging such wars to cease violating the rights of ethnic and religious minorities and peoples. Finally, the U.N. should intervene to protect the rights and lives of religious and ethnic minorities and non-Islamist Muslims in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia Sudan, and Syria.
We would like to meet with you about our concerns, and we wait with hope and prayer, your considered response.

Sincerely,
Fr. Keith Roderick
Secretary General
_______________________

What do you think the chances for that petition are before the moral imbeciles who run the UN?

Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 06:40 PM
In reply to:

If the people of Islam are so peaceful, peace loving, and noble, then they must certainly be deserving of the blessings of democracy - don't you think, pmb?


But if the people of Islam are NOT peaceful, why would you want to liberate them or give them a public voice? Won't an Islamic democracy be an even bigger threat to us, or do you believe it won't be a true democracy and we're trying to set up a puppet state? Hmmm.

Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 06:57 PM
There's a false distinction - "or do you believe it won't be a true democracy and we're trying to set up a puppet state? Hmmm." So, if an Arab state is unable to support a democratic form of government, the alternative is that it will be a US puppet state? Please! Let's look at the forms of government in that part of the world - feudal, oppressive monarchies supported by a police state apparatus, "strong man [dictatorship]" rule, supported by a police state apparatus, or anarchic warlordism, with each warlord aspiring to become a dictator or monarch supported by a modern police state apparatus.

So, PMB, if democracy fails, in an Arab country, you're going to blame us for trying, or accuse the US for setting up a "puppet" regime? Get real!!!
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 07:06 PM
I grew up next door to a Jewish family. We were friendly. In the early 80s an Iranian family moved in next to the Jewish family. My little brother became good friends with their sons. Everybody got along swimmingly.

If the Iraqi gov't becomes a shiite dominated theocracy like the one in Iran, that would be bad. But if it becomes a representative gov't, where the majority rules but minority rights are preserved, if it has legitimacy in the eyes of the people and they are willing to tolerate differences among themselves, and the gov't works against the tyranny of the majority which seems so common over there, then that would be ideal. That kind of democracy would not be a threat to anybody.

I don't see how we could maintain a puppet state in that part of the world without having troops on the ground permanently.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 07:10 PM
2x6, Thanks for posting that petition. I completely support it, and I agree that the U.N., as it is now composed, could never hope to adopt it.

Let's get something straigh here. You and I (and probably everyone else who is brave/thick-skinned enough to read this thread) want the same thing:
  • We want murderous Muslims brought to justice.
  • We want peaceful Muslims to lift their voices and condemn the actions of the violent, bloodthirsty minority.
  • We want the culture of jihad to be eradicated from the Muslim world.
  • We want our lives to be secure and peaceful.
  • We want to do all this with the cooperation of as many countries as possible.
To accomplish these goals, we need to reach the moderate/modernist Muslims around the world, and not alienate them or lump them into the same category as the violent ones. That will do nothing to encourage them to speak up.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 07:13 PM
I apologize for the puppet state reference. I exaggerated the hypothetical "setting it up only to have it fail" MO a bit too much to make a (bad) point.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 07:50 PM
PMB, I agree with you on every count!!
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 10:57 PM
I feel better now.

Here's something I think you'll find interesting:

On clerics, fatwas, and terrorism

And here's a Canadian journalist's account of his 5 days as a hostage in Iraq:

Five Days in Hell
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: Holy crap - 09/21/04 11:07 PM
2 Americans beheaded by Islamic Jihadists over past 2 days. Rest in peace Jack Hensley and Jack Armstrong.

Where is the outrage from Islamic clerics? Where is the fatwah against the murderers who committed these gruesome crimes? Where is the gnashing of teeth, and sense of humiliation for these crimes? Instead, Al Jizera is trumpeting these disgusting acts. Another triumph for Islamic Jihadists.

The announcement: "The nation's zealous children slaughtered the second American hostage ... after the end of the deadline," said the statement, posted under the pseudonym Abu Maysara al-Iraqi, who has posted past statements in the group's name.
The statement said video of the killing would be posted "soon."

Muslim religious institutions, media outlets, pundits, leaders, educational institutions must unequivocally renounce this culture of murder instead of celebrating it.
Posted By: ringmir OT: Politics - 09/22/04 07:11 PM
Hey all, can we leave the title of this as "OT: politics" and not change it around? This way anyone using another view will clearly be able to tell a certain post is in the politics thread. The other option of course it to just end this thread, and not let politics hijack every other thread...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 09/22/04 09:59 PM
I do think this thread has run its course. While it has been enervating at times, I mostly found it educational and enlightening.

If we are going to agree to stop posting to it, I think we should also take the extra step and ask Amie to remove it permanently.

What say you all?

I'm rather looking forward to judging by their opinions on break-in and amplifier differences rather than their political beliefs.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 09/22/04 10:41 PM
Why stop now...we are about to hit 100 pages in the thread list!

And why remove it....I've found it to be one of the more enjoyable threads to follow on here (I can only read so many of the which speaker should I get threads)
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 09/22/04 11:01 PM
100 pages? Mine just spilled over onto page 50, but I've upped the number of posts per page to 20.

Perhaps we should be "democratic" and set up a poll and have people vote on whether the thread should remain?
Posted By: BigWill Re: Holy crap - 09/22/04 11:18 PM
pmb, I hope this thread is not deleted. Reading about wires and break-in can only be interesting for so long. And my zeal for recommending Axioms to newbies seems to come and go (they are great speakers - I love mine).

I just got around to the link you had posted earlier about fatwas and such. That was an extremely interesting page of info. I don't know how credible the opinions are, but it is very good reading. I especially liked:

***Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Open message to the 'Iraqi resistance'
Mohammed Bashar Al-Faidhy, spokesman of the Association of Muslim Scholars, addressed the 'Iraqi resistance' in an open message at a press conference broadcast by the Arab satellite channels yesterday. He stressed the point that this was the first time for the association to openly address the 'resistance'.

He started by reiterating the association's stand of supporting armed resistance against occupation forces. He said it is a legitimate right for any occupied people according to divine laws. He added that the association welcomes the peace talks between the Iraqi government and local leaders in Fallujah, Ramadi and Sammara BUT that does not imply recognition for the Iraqi interim government, and as long as the negotiations do not provide cover for the foreign presence in Iraq they have the association's blessings.

He then proceeded to the message, excerpts below:

"To our brothers in the Islamic Army of Iraq. We wish to inform you that we totally understand the extreme rage that is boiling in your hearts regarding the French decision to ban the Hijab in their schools, and we share you your dissapointment. We officially condemned the French decision at the time... However, killing the two hostages without considering the grave consequences of such an act would be harmful to our cause and would isolate us from our international support... Our goal is to besiege the Americans politically in every spot of the world and this act is not serving that goal... You can see how the agents of the occupation are already using this incident against us... It is our duty as scholars to point out to our brothers what is wrong and what is right... France as an anti-occupation country has been helpful to our cause... You might say that the French stance is not an altruistic one and that they have their own political interests that caused them to disagree with the Americans, and I am not going to say that is not true but it is also our goal to turn them against each other to serve our cause so France has a strategic importance for us... Killing the two hostages is also not helpful to the 6 million Muslims in France... I beseech you to reconsider this and to release the two hostages and to promise us not to commit any act that would harm our cause in the future... We also hope that this development would permit the French government to reconsider their decision to ban the Hijab... When we become a free country Inshallah we will pursue this goal by diplomatic means."

Basically, he is saying: My dear children, it is true that they are infidels, but we should turn the infidels against each other whenever we have the opportunity. Do not kill these two infidels, maybe another time when no one is looking.***

Posted By: pmbuko OT: Politics - 09/23/04 12:55 AM
BigWill, please remember to set the post topics to OT: Politics when you reply, for chesseroo's sake.
Posted By: chesseroo Re: OT: Politics courtesy - 09/23/04 12:56 AM
Your courtesy is generously appreciated Peter.

I abhor the thought that i had to post anything to this thread, so OT it is!
Where's my NHL!!!!
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 02:06 AM
NO!!!!!!!!! Don't take my Heroin!!!!! I can't live without it!!!!

There's a part of me (and the wife) that would like to see the thread come to a close, but the other side hopes that it doesn't, especially w/ the debates coming up, etc. In either case, I don't think that the thread should be deleted. The dialog, positions, and links posted here have been very interesting and sometimes enlightening. I would hate to see all of that go up in smoke. There was a time when I used to troll through all of the old threads when I was bored (before the basement). What a gem it would have been to come across a thread like that. That would have taken hours out of my work-day.

Fingers crossed that I am the one to push this over the 100 post threshold.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 02:07 AM
WOOHOO!!!!.....Our little boy is all grown up.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 06:29 AM
I think the suggestion to not only close but delete so vigorous and interesting a thread is absurd and offensive. Civil discourse on public issues is constructive, informative and entertaining. Asking to not only close the thread but delete it sounds like someone who not only wants to stop this discussion but who wants this discussion forgotten. Participate, PMB, what you're suggesting is censorship.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 01:11 PM
i agree with turbodog.. the debates should be interesting, and you know y'all are gonna have something to say about them.. and you cant bore all your friends at work with politics talk, so you gotta do it somewhere.

i dont post in here very often, but i do read it. someone linked to a story about a reporter that was captured and held hostage for 5 days in iraq.. very interesting read.

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 04:28 PM
2x6, tsk tsk tsk. More misinterpretations on your part. I have immensely enjoyed participating in this thread and my opinion that deleting it from this audio forum are in no way meant to be censorship.

The fact is that this thread is a guilty pleasure for all of us. Yes, we love to go off topic around here, but this thread really is a sore thumb.

On the other hand, the reason the thread has done so well is that at some basic level we all feel comfortable spilling our guts among each other, regardless of how obstreperously we disagree. This comfort level we've attained is due in no small part to freedom we enjoy here on this forum.

Hmmm... well I seem to have just talked myself out of the idea of removing this thread. Nevertheless, I would completely understand if Amie decides this is not the place to host our little club, but I'd be sad to see it go.

Somebody should mirror the posts offsite, just in case that happens.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 04:36 PM
Axiom has always been pretty good about letting us post what we want. I think there would at least be a warning first if Amie decided the thread should go away. I don't see that happenning though. It would have happenned long ago at this point. It certainly can't have gone unnoticed. It's the lenghthiest thread I've seen on their boards.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 06:28 PM
obstreperously!
Posted By: NeverHappy Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 06:49 PM
If I'm not mistaken this is my first and more then likely, only post in this thread. Although a part of me agrees that this thread has no purpose in a audio related site, the other part of me is drastically against censorship of any kind. By removing this thread I would consider that to be censorship. Closing it however is not censorship. Last time I checked these boards are for the discussion of audio/video related topics. If Axiom feels this thread is not in there best interests, they have every right to shut it down. It is after all there house!

If the good folks at Axiom deem this thread to be inappropriate for this forum, my hope is they will simply close it with a polite note along the lines of "This is not the place" etc.

At the end of the day, I have no use for politics, politicians etc but censorship is a rabid dog that if allowed to go unchecked will only breed and before you know it we will have a bunch of little rabid censors out there spewing what they want me to know, not what I have a right to know!
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 07:29 PM
"obstreperously" - Did you pull out the thesaurus on that one or what? ...made me pull up Merriam-Webster. See, you learn something new here ever day.

Maybe we should rename the subject line to "OT:Obstreperously" That'd get Ringmere & Chessaroo's attention
Posted By: chesseroo OT:Obstreperously - 09/23/04 07:39 PM

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 08:01 PM
No, very surprisingly I did not have to consult the thesaurus for that one. However, I did need to a couple weeks ago while I was reading one of my father-in-law's occasional e-mail updates. He avoids cliches like the plague, and we all end up with expanded vocabularies as a result.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 08:18 PM
If we started a new politics thread this one might eventually disappear. Maybe the new one will be more focussed on the coming election? And everybody's old indefensible positions and contradictory statements can be forgotten.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 09:45 PM
OK, but I'd rather not forget Bush's indefensible positions.


Ooooh. BURN! Sorry, I had to.

And now for something not incompletely different: Bush is an embarassment to real men
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 09/23/04 10:28 PM
Oh that was a disappointing link. I was hoping for more of a fact based exposition on his cheerleading days, and whatever other wimpy stuff he did. Having "cheerleader" on your resume - for a guy at least - is just embarassing. No offense to you ex-cheerleaders.
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: Politics - 09/24/04 02:44 PM
In reply to:

BigWill, please remember to set the post topics to OT: Politics when you reply, for chesseroo's sake.




I kinda liked it better when it was called "Holy crap"
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - Holy Crap! - 09/24/04 11:05 PM
Anybody else surprised by the way Kerry has lashed out with such sudden negativity about the Iraq war? During the primaries - when his opposition was anti-war Dean - he waved the flag and said he agreed with the war. Now he's anti-war?
It seems like this should have been his position all along based on his history of Vietnam protest/slander, liberal voting record in the Senate, and what may be a tiny itsy-bitsy little piece of ideology (it's hard to tell if he actually has any real beliefs because he takes a different position everyday - depending on who the viewing audience is).
I understand the desire to be President must be huge to these guys, but c'mon, there has to be some limit to this stuff, don't you think?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - Holy Crap! - 09/24/04 11:24 PM
Whoever is running his campaign needs to be fired, that's for sure.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - Wow, Just Wow... - 09/24/04 11:58 PM
This is so frickin' sad. An American woman who converted to Islam, who is also a college basketball player, wants to wear long sleeves and pants on the court, so people insult her and call her a terrorist.

This sort of thing makes me sick.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - Wow, Just Wow... - 09/25/04 04:32 AM
That makes you sick? This past week we have suffered 2 Americans slaughtered - murdered, their murderers cut of their heads, and was it 2 or 3 Italian women, aid workers, who were also slaughtered, more murderers cut their heads cut off. The murderers prayed while they cut the heads off the bodies of these human beings. That makes me sick. That's no way to celebrate the creator of us all, don't you think? Something has gone very wrong in that culture, very sick. Any Fatwahs condemning these murderers to death? No. But Salman Rushdie, who wrote a novel which offended the faithful, he is the subject of a death Fatwah. What's wrong here?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 11:56 AM
PM - I will agree with you that it's tragic that this girl is taking this kind of beating for something that would have gone unnoticed a few years ago. Unfortunately, it's to be expected. The writer of the article states the obvious that there are both doctors and Bush-supporters that are faithful Muslims. Of course, that's true. I don't think that anyone with any semblance of an education would disagree. However, there's a significant segment of the population that will lash out in anger at those seeking to change or disrupt their sheltered lives. Take that recipe and add 9/11 and the recent disgusting beheadings and you have yourself a pressure-cooker that's going to blow. This girl just happens to be the present focus of that anger.

Now, with the PC compassionate stuff taken care of, I have to say that this article perplexes me a bit. I've often wondered how American-born Muslim women resist the temptation to just say screw it and not follow the strict appearance guidelines of their religion. Living day-to-day amongst American women, you would think that the younger women would get a taste of the freedom and rebel. Oh well, I guess the fear of Allah striking them down is enough to keep them in line....or at least any male relative who got offended when he sees her ankle.

Now, that brings us back to this girl. What I can't seem to understand is how Christian women can convert to Islam when they must know about the documented widespread abuse and oppression of women in the Muslim world. I can understand that the core teaching may have attracted her, but I don't see how an educated woman could make a conscious decision to take part in something that openly oppresses women and is complicit in an unending flow of vicious, vile, and hate-filled violence at the hands of Islamic terrorists who commit these acts under the authority (in their minds) of Allah and Islam. But, that is me imposing my value system on someone else.....It just doesn't make sense to me.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 12:13 PM
BigWill - What actually surprises me the most is that no one is telling him to cut the crap w/ all the flip-flopping. Does he not think that the media has the tapes rolling?...that they wouldn't catch on to how often he changes his positions?...or, did he just think that he could ride the anti-Bush wagon to end and just expect the American people to just accept and forgive all of his contradictions and continued inconsistencies? I'm not sure why he's in such a rush to debate Bush. After all, all Bush has to do is simply and tactfully bring up Kerry's previous positions and how they would have been in agreement if he had maintained those positions. He could do that all night and make Kerry look like an idiot on national TV. I guarantee that the Bush camp will not miss that golden opportunity.

In the end, I think that Kerry's campaign is slowly but surely unraveling. I don't think that this is due to any kind of massive shift in public opinion (conservative mandate). I think that the core problem is that the Democratic party picked a loser as it's candidate. They picked someone that has zero charisma and holds no semblance of a core belief system....and it's beginning to show through. We're beginning to see that there's just a little greedy opportunist man behind that curtain.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 04:40 PM
pmb, people are stupid. But if the same thing were to happen in Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc... - a local girl converting to Christianity, trotting around the bazaar in daisy dukes and a halter top - I wonder what folks over there would do?

turbodog, people are stupid. Kerry is counting on that, and the complicity of the TV news media, to try and address different segments of the population with different messages - hoping they'll catch a soundbite they like and won't hear anything else.

Between Kerry's nuanced campaign strategy and the TV ads here in California for all the ballot initiatives, my confidence in democracy is being tested.


Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 09:05 PM
BigWill, the penalty under Islamic law for conversion to another faith is death. So, my question is, why get so upset about a few yahoos who make fun of a woman basketball player who wants to wear a non-conforming uniform, when that culture would kill her for converting out of Islam? How can you get so upset about the issue of some folks' reaction to a woman who wants to cover herself from head to foot as required by Islamic law, even while playing basketball when Islamicists are cutting peoples' heads off, blowing up markets, pizza parlors, flying airliners full of men, women and children into high rise buildings, murdering thousands in the name of Islam ... where's the balance here?
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 09:33 PM
Why worry about urban american racism when we could focus instead on the Darfur crisis?

Why worry about hurricane damage in Florida when Haiti has been completely leveled by Jeanne?

Why worry about homelessness in the US when somewhere between 7 and 15% of rural Bangladeshi's are homeless and even more in the cities?

Where's the balance there?

The point is, it all sucks... but we can't let ourselves ignore one problem just because there's a worse problem going on somewhere else. You think it's unreasonable to get upset about something happening in the US just because it happens to a much worse extent elsewhere in the world?
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 09:38 PM
Ringmir... I have been lurking lately... but Bigwill said "Why get so upset?" ... not "We should ignore".

And yes, what happened to the girl playing basketball was bad.

She IS alive, however. We did not behead her as an infidel.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 09:54 PM
We can get upset about these things that happen here because it is in our country, so we expect things to be to a higher standard. Just because worse things are going on in other countries does not make it ok for bad things to go on here.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 10:06 PM
This is where I get frustrated. I just said what happened to her was BAD. Do we need a dictionary here ?
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 10:21 PM
Craig, my post was mostly in response to 2x6. The tone of his post seems to indicate that what happened here is ok because it pales in comparison to what would have happened were the situation reversed. If that's not what the intention was I appologize, but that is how it reads, especially in conjunction with his previous post. I think Zarak was just providing the response to my rhetorical question.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: Politics - 09/25/04 10:39 PM
That is cool... and I agree, the people who have a problem with this girl are wrong. There is a lot of stuff being thrown around in the article that was the link that had no proof... just "say what I want in quotes, therefore it is true"... no proof as to who said it....

And there IS the point... about KILLING... we cannot even IMAGINE a beheading here...


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 09/26/04 06:18 PM
For the record, 2x6 said, "Why get so upset", not me - though I would have to agree with the sentiment.

There is no racism involved in the case of the basketball player. Ignore the jests and stupid remarks of the hillbillies, and focus on the response of the NCAA. They said "no" to the request for a uniform variance. End of story.

"Bad" things are happening all over the world. Animals are eaten alive by bigger animals, disease wipes out large numbers of every species, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc... It is a mistake we make in thinking that gov't can solve/prevent these problems or pick up the pieces afterwards and make everything better. It's life - bad stuff happens. There is no insurance you can buy - or gov't program we can fund - to make everybody's lives perfect. We continue to head for that Big Brother nanny-style gov't.

Anyway, it's unrealistic of that girl to expect to wear the burka (or whatever it is) on the basketball court. They could put Michael Jordan in the thing and win every game!
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 09/27/04 08:53 PM
Out of fear of this thread dropping into the next page, I thought I'd toss this out there...

What does everyone think about the government's proposal to ban soldiers from utilizing the services of prostitutes while abroad?

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: Politics - 09/27/04 08:56 PM
I think it will be as heeded as often as the no smoking bans... soldiers will be... soldiers.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: Politics - 09/27/04 09:22 PM
i would have never made it throught the 'nam if it wernt for my dinky-dow house maid.. that girl could suck a dinosaur thru time!! (i know, not very PC!!?)

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: Politics - 09/27/04 10:03 PM
Not PC... but the funniest damn thing I have EVER read on this forum...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 09/27/04 10:41 PM
I'm all for free enterprise.

I think it's a PR move to make the presence of our troops seem less intrusive.

I'm surprised nobody hassled me over my previous post. It appears FEMA is going to dump huge sums of money into Florida to help folks replace their mobile homes that blew away. Bad move. Meteorologists are talking about this being the beginning of a 30 year storm cycle for Florida. They need to build their houses of bricks, a la pig #3.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 09/28/04 12:12 AM
You'll be singing a different tune when the BIG ONE hits California BigWill. The money from FEMA is not just for homes. It's for rebuilding infrastructure as well.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 09/28/04 11:38 AM
I picked it up. However, I didn't know how to answer, as I am sometimes on the fence about FEMA....depending on how much of my liberal streak exposes itself . I definitely think that it should be reformed. There's no reason that the federal government should pick up the full tab on natural disasters. Instead, I would suggest that FEMA should be there to provide access to low-interest loans for rebuilding.

As BigWill put it, natural disasters happen....$hit happens. It's not the government's job to foot the bill for fixing things. That's why we have homeowners insurance, flood insurance, etc. If you don't have those, then you are taking that risk. People down in florida, especially those on the coast, knew the risks when they moved there (my mom included). Not having insurance in those scenarios is foolish.

I know that I might get flamed for the above statement by some of our more liberal peers here, but this is just another entitlement program bleeding the country. Just because a tornado rips your home apart doesn't mean that we as a country should pay to have your house rebuilt. Do like the rest of us.....file a claim with your insurance. If they don't replace the house, then pack up your crap, get an apartment, and start over. Home ownership is not an entitlement. If the forces of nature decide to take from you, nothing entitles you to have it back.

Now...just keep fingers crossed that a remnant of Jean doesn't twist up into a tornado and rip through my house for saying that.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 09/28/04 04:47 PM
I didn't mean scrap FEMA. I just meant that it is bad policy to replace mobile homes in areas that are likely to be torn apart again. They need to be looking at different types of dwellings maybe? Insurance companies probably are not willing to insure mobile homes down there, I'll bet.

Not to sound like a monster, but similar problems exist in Africa. Rather than address the underlying cause or find a true remedy, we have band-aid policy that does little to prevent future disasters and expenditures. In Africa there has been a 10,000 year cycle of drought that makes population increases difficult to sustain.
They need things like dams, irrigation projects and industrial scale farming technology in order to sustain more people than the natural environment will. Sending food relief only makes the problem worse.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 09/28/04 10:40 PM
This might sound bad, but is it too much to ask the people in Africa to not overpopulate to get to the point where they have those problems? I guess you'd have to put a limit on children per family or something like that to really enforce that, which is tough to do. It applies to the US too though. How long can some welfare families continue to have more kids when they can't support them? People should not be having children without the means to support those children on their own. Another tax credit is not a good reason to have another child. I just don't have much sympathy for people that put themselves into a situation that they know going in (or should anyway) that they can't handle, and yet they do it anyway and then want help from the govt.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/29/04 07:35 AM
Not that it's any surprise, but those Saudis sure hate Jews.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/29/04 04:05 PM
No surprises there, but they all seemed to say those things with such good humor, didn't they?"
Posted By: twodan19 Re: OT: Politics - 09/29/04 07:57 PM
zarak, i agree, but it's not them supporting their kids, it's us working stiffs. now that pi$$es me off.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 09/29/04 11:59 PM
The 3rd World has lots of problems - overpopulation among them.
Birth control programs just aren't going to work for those people. Food relief efforts do nothing to solve the real problems, actually making it worse in the long run if the underlying causes of the famine are not addressed. I'd like to see the corrupt elites of all those countries in the UN (like those involved in the oil for food scheme) actually decide to do something like build a dam and aqueduct system in one of these countries.
Of course, then the environmentalists will scream about lost habitat for the endangered pfiffer pfeffer pfeff and the zizzer zazzer zuzz.
I think we'll eventually see some sort of nasty, nasty epidemic bring the worlds population down, especially in those poor undeveloped countries.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 01:38 AM
Isn't it time we talked about Iraq again?

I bring you an article written by an officer stationed in Iraq, with 20 years of experience under his belt. It's called Why We Cannot Win in Iraq.

Apparently he's in some pretty deep sh** for writing this, but that's to be expected.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 04:44 AM
PM, Once again, I have read one of your links, and found it worthless. As soon as this nitwit declared it unconstitutional, he was toast. Congress voted on it. 302 House member voted in favor. 218 were needed. passed.

77 Senators voted in favor. 51 needed. passed.

That made it constitutional.

The man lied about that. WHAT makes you think anything else was true ?

This is why I read and think for myself, instead of reading fringe nutcases.

Try it sometime.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 05:47 AM
Once again, I read your reply to one of my posts and find that you have dismissed everything out of hand simply because the author has a viewpoint that does not agree with yours. You can't dismiss an entire article as worthless simply because you find a single point in error.

The war in Iraq was unconstitutional in his opinion. The rest of the article is also his opinion. His opinion on how this administration is handling Iraq happens to be informed by his current responsibilities there. As he said in his article, he is "in Civil Affairs and as such, it is [his] job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in [his] region."

Do you really disagree with everything he says? Can you give me a point my point breakdown what else you think warrants calling this man a nitwit? Do you think we are NOT fighting a guerilla war in Iraq?
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 06:01 AM
PMB, I think you have demonstrated why we cannot really win the war on terror - you demonstrated this truth with your MEMRI link and the Saudi man on the street survey as to whether any of them would shake hands with a Jewish person. None would. These attitudes are the product of a seemless world view propagated by every Saudi institution - from the 'Royal' family, to schools, universities, all media, every statement from every pulpit, every pronouncement by every 'expert,' professional, lawyer, doctor, etc. It is a world view of hatred which although it focuses on the Jew, you should not think that Christians occupy a substantially higher status in their eyes. Ask the average Saudi whether he condemns 'suicide' (homicide) bombing of innocents in Israeli Pizza Parlors or busses and he will tell you there are no 'innocents' in Israel - not even children. Saudis have been selfless in their use of petrodollars, generous with that money to fund schools, Islamic centers, mosques, all over the world to spread ths world view of hatred, malice and lies to the faithful.

Ultimately, if the war on terror is to be won, it must be fought by Muslims against Muslims. Although these Saudis were unanimous in their refusal to shake hands with a Jewish person, and if asked, I'm sure each would have said he would be glad to kill any Jew he came across, it was not widely reported, but Alawi, the acting PM of Iraq shook hands with the Israeli ambassador to the UN after Alawi's address to the General Assembly. This must have outraged Kofi Annan, but demonstrates that the change of regimes in Iraq, brought about by US force of arms, has resulted in at least a tentative and symbolic shift in the Arab world. A small first step, but every journey starts with nothing greater.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 11:22 AM
PM, As a liberal, I know you think the Constitution is an opinion piece, it is not. The constitution specifically says Congress must vote to give the President the power to wage war. Our Congress voted on th Iraq war. It passed. That is not an opinion. SO... The guy lied about it.

Period.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 05:18 PM
Some of these links I have seen provide good examples that the internet is a tool for making humans more stupid. Devolution is REAL.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 05:24 PM
Is it that much of a blanket statement that anything that Congress passes to allow war to be waged is ok? Is there nothing else in the Constitution that this guy might have been referring to, and therefore considering what was going on unconstituitional?

Is it ok for us to go attack any country we want based on the Constitution, as long as congress passes it?
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 05:54 PM
It depends on whose legality you are following. In terms of internal US legality, it would seem that is all that is required. If you are speaking in terms of international community legality as perhaps viewed by the UN (much harder to define and enforce) then it becomes questionable.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 06:33 PM
When I was a young man, I had such high hopes for the UN - here was an international organization which would advance the cause of world peace, prosperity, public health, education, in short an organization which would help dignify and improve the human condition.

What a disappointment! The UN is now a debating society for representatives of tyrants, which advances the causes of police state kleptocracies rather than democracy.

It is such a scandal that representatives of Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, who chaired the UN Human Rights Commission so venemously criticize the US and Israel while they remain thuderously silent on the genocidal efforts of Arab Muslims in Sudan, Somalia, Chad, Nigeria, etc. etc.

The UN's now notorious OIL for PALACES program is one of the greatest frauds in history, but one which benefitted France and Russia, countries which sold their security council votes to keep the Saddam Hussein regime in place so the money train could keep rolling. Did the UN blink an eye about Saddam Hussein's mass murders of Iraqis or Kurds?

The UN Secretariat bureaucracy is driven by kick backs both monetary and sexual.

The UN is not a light unto the nations. It has become the instrument of the craven which supports oppression all over the world.

So, query: Does the United States require the approval of the UN before the US takes action to effectuate our foreign policies or defend our national security?

There is a body of opinion that the only legitimate use of US force is in giving effect to UN policies. In my opinion, anyone who argues that the US should subject its foreign policy is arguing in favor of giving up our sovereignty and putting our force and wealth at the disposal of a depraved international bureaucracy driven by oppressive fascistic regimes who can only agree on two propositions - 1. The US is evil and should be thwarted at every turn, 2. Israel is evil and should be destroyed.

The UN is a disgrace.
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 06:40 PM
As I said, harder to define and enforce Just making the observation that some people do deem the US actions in Iraq illegal under international law. And, if we look into it strictly from an international legal perspective, there is some basis for that accusation. What I'm not saying is, that we should necessarily follow international law. Or that those laws make sense.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 07:21 PM
The best case against the UN and its "security council" is its lack of representation. Two of the most populous countries, India and Japan, are absent. I can't see how a UN supporter could not understand this simple fact.

And thus, any notion of "international law" is a joke. As much of a joke as the members who don't obey "international law".
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 08:07 PM
So because he lied about that (or was simply misinformed), the rest of his story bears absolutely no relevance, craig?

And the way you condescendingly turn "liberal" into an insult is getting just a little old. Not all liberals think alike, nor do we all think of the Constitution as an opinion piece. But I know it's much easier for you to just lump everyone in together.

I didn't want to post in this thread again, but your condescension is out of line.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 08:14 PM
Zarak, The president has to ask Congress to declare war. Then Congress approves or denies. I was assuming everyone knew the President HAD asked Congress.

The President also has 90 days, under the War Powers Act of 1973, to engage in military conflict without congressional approval.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 08:18 PM
Adam, If you want to bow out, fine. A question for you though, if you think that saying someone is a liberal is an insult, then why are you a liberal ? If you call me a conservative, I will thank you.

And the whole basis of the guy's rant was that this was unconstitutional... HOW could someone with 20 year's worth of military service NOT know how wars are declared ?

Well... you do make a point, he was either lying, or totally lacking in intelligence. Either way, his stuff is not credible.

Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 08:34 PM
Craig, for clarity here, he didn't say calling someone a liberal was an insult, he said your usage of the word comes across as an insult.
Posted By: ScottA Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 08:35 PM
I believe that maybe he is more credible than any of us. He is a 20 year man and he is there. We are not. It amazes me that some just dismiss everything he says. I am sure that some of us know so much more than he even though we have not spent a second in his place.

Adam,

If you have not followed this thread to close, you should know the following. If you do not agree with Craig, then you are wrong. Period.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 09:29 PM
craigsub, you do sound condescending much of the time, but wtf, eh?
Condescension, arrogance and intolerance of differing opinions seems more the province of liberals in America today. If you don't agree with them you must be stupid, ignorant or both. The beginning pages of this thread bear witness to that.
At least the lefties aren't calling us stupid anymore.

Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 09:45 PM
TONIGHTS DEBATE

KERRY , BUSH
LURCH , MONKEY
FLIP-FLOPPING , STRATEGERY
TAN , WEATHERED
SUIT&TIE , OVERALLS
HIKING BOOTS , [censored] KICKERS
MARRIED MONEY , BORN WITH MONEY


is anyone else disgusted with the 'rules of the debate'? its not even a debate, at least by definition.. its like an orchestrated reality show. there was even arrangements made for each candidiate to bring their own make-up person...? there is a maximum podium height and mandated room temperature. i mean really.. how really cares what they have to say, as long as their mascara done run!!!

bigjohn




Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 11:32 PM
In reply to:

And the whole basis of the guy's rant was that this was unconstitutional


Please keep in mind that the author of the article is a member of the Constitution Party of Texas -- an organization with which I believe you would agree on many issues. Here's a short list:
In reply to:

WHEREAS, the legitimate function of government is to protect the life, the liberty and the property of its citizens; and

WHEREAS, the 9th and 10th Articles of the Bill of Rights specifically forbid all functions of the Federal Government except those specifically delegated to it; and

WHEREAS, the entire system of government welfare is a communist idea predicated upon the concept of taking from the rich and giving to the poor; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of Texas does not empower the State Government to take money from one group to benefit another, and

WHEREAS, both major political parties are socialistic in nature, differing only in how to "reform" the welfare system...


Also, his use of the term "un-Constitutional" is special. Notice the capitalization. If we wanted to say that the war in Iraq was illegal according to the Constitution, he would have simply said the war was "unconstitutional". But he didn't. You can't ignore the obvious distinction he is trying to make. This is what he means when he says the war is un-Constitutional:
In reply to:

We say "No!" to the so-called New World Order; and "Yes!" to the national sovereignty of the United States of America.

The Constitution Party opposes any alliance or participation in any treaty or agreement which compromises our independence as a nation, or which subverts our Constitution by improperly committing us to participation in foreign conflicts or intervention in foreign wars.

We join with other American patriots to oppose the surrender of American liberty and autonomy to any form of world government or any organization which works toward that end.

We call upon the president and Congress to terminate the membership of the United States in the United Nations and its subsidiary and affiliated organizations.

All treaties must be subordinate to the Constitution because the Constitution is the only instrument which empowers and limits the federal government.

No treaties (even if signed by the president or one of his agents on behalf of the United States) lacking the Constitutionally required two-thirds concurrence of the Senate may be implemented, in whole or part, by Congressional act, Executive Order, or bureaucratic regulation(s).

The Framers assumed, as a matter of course, that treaties would be subordinate. In fact, the stated reason for the particular wording of the Constitution concerning treaties was to make sure pre-existing treaties, including post-Revolutionary peace treaties concluded after the Articles of Confederation, would remain valid.

Thomas Jefferson, addressing the question directly, had this to say: "...surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way."



Posted By: md55 Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 11:33 PM
For something to be definitively unconstitutional the federal courts would have to have the matter brought under their jurisdiction, and to have finally decided the matter. If this has not happened, the unconstitutionality of a process or series of acts would, I think, be a matter of opinion.

The constitution vests the power to declare war in congress, not the president or the senate. The War Powers Act of 1973 lays out the power of the president to commit U.S. forces to action. The five Presidents preceding G. W. Bush since 1973 have considered the war powers act unconstitutional and they and congress have frequently ignored it. So it does appear that Presidents and congress both frequently act unconstitutionally in the use of military force.

Since congress has not declared war, and a sovreign nation has been invaded, its government overthrown, and the country occupied based on what are now disputed facts as to the threat that country actually posed justifying the invasion, it seems to me that constitutionality is debatable. To call a soldier engaged in the occupation of that country a liar for opining on the unconstitutionality of the war doesn’t seem warranted. That congress voted on a resolution has no definitive bearing on whether that resolution was in fact constitutional. That fact would have to be established in the courts. It seems more reasonable to me to consider the man’s point of view based on his observations and logic rather than dismiss everything he has to say and calling him a liar because you disagree with a single opinion on a debatable matter.

Minus the findings prefacing the resolution, the act authorizing the use of force in Iraq reads as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Since the U.S. didn't return to the U.N. for a final resolution autorizing the invasion, and by U.S. law/treaty the we are bound to the U.N. process it is again, at a minimum, debatable, rather than a matter of established fact upon which one should be called a liar.

Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 09/30/04 11:50 PM
In reply to:

That congress voted on a resolution has no definitive bearing on whether that resolution was in fact constitutional.




This is exactly what I was trying to bring up with my questions above. Apparently that point was missed by craigsub.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 02:40 AM
The debate is over, so I'll get things started here. From someone who went in it still trying to decide who to vote for, Kerry won. What he had to say just sit better with me and makes more sense then what Bush had to say.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 03:24 AM
So true (about the debate format) Big John!

As far as who won tonite... I think it doesn't matter, that was an extremely weak debate. I think it was a abysmal 'draw' cause neither canidate said anything other than "im better!"

Posted By: JaimeG Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 03:27 AM
Ditto.
Posted By: donaldekelly Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 03:44 AM
I think Kerry won, but already Wolf Blitzer is trying to nitpick on where Kerry said Osama is. I think Kerry meant Osama "was" in Afghanistan - not Iraq.

Yes, I did not watch the debate on Fox News. But they did provide some good cutaways of Bush.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 05:00 AM
Well of course each was trying to say "I'm better", but hands down, Kerry was more convincing. I find it hard to believe how anyone could see this as a draw.

President Bush came off as a little perplexed, especially toward the last half of the debate.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 05:41 AM
I thought Bush came off as more "pissed" than "perplexed". In that sense Kerry won - he made Bush become un-Presidential.
In the larger sense we all lost, as what Kerry had to say greatly undermines the efforts of our country and our soldiers in the Middle East.
I would say Kerry's newest position on Iraq is ludicrous. It was a mistake, but if he is elected he will prosecute the war more effectively? If he thinks the war is a mistake he should bring the troops home and put Saddam back in power. Bam! mistake undone.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 05:59 AM
BigWill, I really hope you're joking.

Kerry's primary point is that the way the President is running the war is a mistake, and not the goals the President has set. Kerry is trying to convince voters that he has a better way of reaching those goals.

In reply to:

what Kerry had to say greatly undermines the efforts of our country and our soldiers in the Middle East.


That's one opinion. Here's another. I think the way President Bush is running the war (e.g. not completely in touch with reality and paying little heed to intelligence reports from his own staff) greatly undermines the efforts of our soldiers in the Middle East.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 07:18 AM
One of my favorite points of tonight was when JK pointed out that if you want to talk about sending mixed messages, how do you say to the world that we're going to disarm you if you try to develop WMD's, while we ourselves are developing new nuclear weapons ourselves.

Another good point was how GW has handled N. Korea. I wholeheartedly agree with JK on how to handle N. Korea, I think GW is WAY of base there.


Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 11:18 AM
In reply to:

Adam, If you want to bow out, fine. A question for you though, if you think that saying someone is a liberal is an insult, then why are you a liberal ? If you call me a conservative, I will thank you.




You misunderstand me, Craig. I do not believe using the word "liberal" to describe someone is an insult (quite the opposite actually). However, you very clearly use it as an insult. And not by specifically pointing out clear factual errors, but by making sweeping and often incorrect generalizations and applying them to individuals (e.g. as a liberal, I know you think the Constitution is an opinion piece).

And for the record, I'm just as uncomfortable with people who say "you conservatives" with the same condescending tone. Liberals are not your enemies. Conservatives are not your enemies. I'm getting sick and tired of all this haughty name calling and demonizing on both sides of the fence. No one side has all the answers.

And you continue to be a brick wall with regards to the article. The fact that his premise was flawed does not mean that his story holds no relevance. But it's nice to see you dismiss the entire story based on what ultimately results to a technicality. Yes the war was legally enacted. There are lots of things that can be legally enacted that aren't necessarily good things. It was legal to own slaves once upon a time. Did that make it morally just?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 12:19 PM
Craig, I have to go w/ these guy on this. You were being condescending to the misguided libs.

As far as the debate goes, I will agree that Kerry did pull off the win. I say that not because of the content of his speech, but the delivery. He basically won because Bush lost. As usual, Bush got tongue-tied and didn't stick to his guns.....unfortunately, what I thought might happen.

Now, everyone on the Left may have the pom-poms out after getting a jolt from Kerry's performance and that's to be expected. However, John Kerry's flaws remain glaringly obvious, even after his performance. John Kerry is a used car salesman. John Kerry will say whatever suits his needs at the time. He tries to brush off the flip-flop comments as his ability to revise his thoughts in response to new information. The sheep go "ahhhh" and leave it at that, but the rest of the rational world realize that his continual and unrelenting tendancy to change his opinions and contradict the very words he has stated is despicable. This man wants to be the leader of the free world. The President of the United States doesn't have the luxury of changing his or her opinions on a whim. The world community will not provide the level of forgiveness or forgetfullness that Kerry presently expects, nor should it. The POTUS has the difficult job of processing information from all sides and then making the tough decisions.....all for the good of the nation.

The POTUS doesn't need to take every issue to the UN to pass the "world litmus test". We need someone who realizes that the UN is a pathetic organization that must not have a say in how we as a nation protect ourselves. John Kerry does not understand this. He speaks of building better coalitions.....HOW??? The allies Kerry adores have absolutely no intention, nor have they ever had any intention of taking part in this war...unless they can make some profit in it. Germany has already stated that they will not take part, even if Kerry is elected. The French are going to do what the Germans do.....because they are a bunch of self-richeous cowards who loath everything about us dirty Americans. Russia has their own problems, so I don't expect them to be sending out the Russian troops anytime soon. In the end, John Kerry is talking out his Euro-envious A$$.

This year, it is definitely another year of picking the better of two evils. Because of their loathing of Bush, many have jumped blindly on the side of John Kerry. However, slowly but surely, the public is beginning to see that he is a pathetic candidate for President because he has no spine. He has not core belief structure. He does only what is beneficial to him at the time. Fortunately for us, time has caught up with Kerry. People are beginning to understand this core problem with Kerry. Hell, even CBS is finally acknowledging it.

We've gone round and round on this and it doesn't seem to sink in. Yes, there are many things to dislike about Bush's policies, but he's the President and he acts like it. John Kerry views the presidency simply as the last great conquest in his career.....the final outcome that he sought when he went to Vietnam so briefly....the last rung on the ladder of his political career that he lusted for his whole life.....the position worth all of the lies, contradictions, and inconsistencies that he has used to get this far. That is not what being President is all about. Being President of the United States is about being strong-willed, determined, and diligent in the protection of the people of this country, regardless if whether it bodes well with the polls and the ever-shifting winds of public opinion.

Enough with the rant....the baby beckons...as does work, unfortunately.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 12:51 PM
In reply to:

Being President of the United States is about being strong-willed, determined, and diligent in the protection of the people of this country




Being strong willed is all well and good, but you also need to be able to realize when a mistake has been made and make changes to the plan to try to rectify those mistakes. There has to be a balance between being strong willed and being able to adjust on the fly.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 03:01 PM
Spiff, I don't "get" Kerry's point on North Korea. In Iraq he wants allies but in North Korea, he wants to "go it alone". I thought that the actual countries in the vicinity of North Korea have more at stake than we do in that region. Hence the multilateral talks.

Please explain to me your thoughts. I have no clue as to how bilateral talks are pertinent.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 03:45 PM
At what point did Kerry say he wanted to "go it alone" with N. Korea? Having talks with N. Korea in no way, shape, or form means going it alone.

Even if he did mean going it alone, and talking with N. Korea, how could that possibly be any worse than what George W. has done? One of the very first things he did when he took office was to publicly anounce that he was cutting all talks with N. Korea. This, after the Clinton administration had gotten very far in open talks. North and South Koreans were for the first time able to see family members on opposite sides of the border. As Kerry stated last night, we knew what they had, and where it was when we were talking with them. But as soon as George decides to pull out, what happened?


Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 04:16 PM
How is bilateral talks not "going it alone"? He wants bilateral talks. Talks for what? We have been talking with them for years and the whole time they have been working on the bomb. How have these talks achieved a positive result? The truth is we didn't know crap because it was only a few years ago we found out that they were working on nuclear technology. Remember?

How does bilateral talks show respect for the countries in the region that have a larger stake than we do? I thought we wanted to reach out to countries and include them. I guess Asia doesn't count.

Posted By: md55 Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 04:36 PM
To add to what Spiffnme said: John Kerry never said anything about going it alone. It was G. W. Bush's claim that bi-lateral talks would cause the collapse of larger negotiations. There were no factual assertions to support that viewpoint so we just have a difference of opinion on what is the most effective approach.

I think this points up some key differences between the candidates. Bush seems to see most things in black and white either/or terms and is very decisive between the extremes. Kerry seems to see things in more nuanced, graduated terms. By comparison he can be called indecisive, wishy washy or a flip flopper, a point G.W. tried to make over and over and over. I believe that to sort out any of these issues independent factual research is required rather than just following opinion pieces.

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 05:30 PM
Zarak - Agreed. However, the problem here is that the candidate walks around saying that the mistake is one that he wouldn't have made. We have this moron up there making statements like this: "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.".....completely illogical statement which tries to make the Presidents actions out to be wrong, even though the information that he speaks of was not available at the time the President made his choice. He goes further:

SAWYER: So it was not worth it?

KERRY: We should not -- depends on the outcome ultimately and that depends on the leadership, and we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. But I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat

Huh?....he is completely full of $&*T!!!!

Kerry had the same information that the President had and he voted to grant the President the authority to use force.

In his own words to george stephanopoulos(May 2003) - "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him,".

Yes, this hypocrit was there in the past calling for the US to take preemptive action against Hussein and arguing that Hussein was a threat to the nation and that region.

Oct 9, 2002: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Senate Speech

Jan 23, 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

He stated numerous times that he supported what President Bush had done. (I can continue to post quotes, but I found a site that helps with this)

He only changed his tack when he started to slide against Howard Dean, who was always against the war. Now, suddenly he attempt to rewrite or wash away history and make himself out to be something he's not.....a man with conviction and character....a man who stands by his positions and admits his faults rather than trying to deceive the public about his record.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 05:50 PM
Vary well said, turbodog, in both posts. I believe I said on page 2 that Kerry is your typical whore politician. Painfully obvious to all. That there remains a chance he may be President is disturbing. I cannot think of a candidate in my lifetime - maybe Dukakis - who has been less deserving, less qualified to become President.
He "won" the debate because he attacked Bush and his policies with hyperbole, malice and half-truths. IMO, his new, desperate campaign strategy borders on treasonous. He talks about how he defended America in Vietnam, but he came home and attacked America, fueling the opposition and undermining our efforts in the field. He's doing the same thing now because he wants to be President so bad he'll do or say anything - even marry for money.
Posted By: ringmir Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 05:58 PM
How is it that nobody understands his position? He has said repeatedly that he thinks Saddam needed to be removed, there is no question of this, and he doesn't deny it. What he is saying is that Bush did it wrong. Not that doing it was wrong, but that Bush did it wrong. That is his position, not too fuzzy. Yes, he voted to give Bush the authority, based on the same information Bush had. But when he voted for that it was assuming a set of steps would be followed. Those steps were not followed. He was for the war in Iraq, but ended up against the war because of how Bush chose to fight it. This is not flip-flopping, it's recognizing mistakes as they are made and attempting to right them.

I mean hypothetically, if your brother says "Hey, can I take your kids out to the movies Friday." You might say "Sure". If they come back and tell you they saw a double feature of "Sliver" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", you would then go severely reprimand your brother. There's no flip flopping here on your part, it's a perfectly reasonable progression of opinions.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 06:37 PM
good analogy there ringmir!!

In reply to:

He talks about how he defended America in Vietnam, but he came home and attacked America



bigwill- thats another issue that irks me that the republicans always use as a parachute.. kerry actually went to vietnam and fought in the war, unlike bush.. then, once he came home, he did what any activists would do about something that he thought was wrong.. so he, along with a LARGE part of the nation, joined in an effort to 'call-out' the government for the things it was doing wrong.. i for one find no fault in that at all.. he never questioned the troops or their loyalty, but he did question the authority that put them there.

would you rather we all just abide and follow every rule the government gives us?? do you wanna spend your life as a sheep?? not me.......

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 07:01 PM
In reply to:

He talks about how he defended America in Vietnam, but he came home and attacked America, fueling the opposition and undermining our efforts in the field.


Whoah, whoah, whoah. So you're saying is was right for the US to be in Vietnam in the first place? I thought it was pretty much agreed that our involvement -- other than advising the South Vietnamese -- was a complete mistake, and not just because of how it turned out in the end.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 08:10 PM
Rather than get bogged down again in a protracted argument about the UN, failed resolutions, WMD, etc..., I mean only to talk about Kerry's position here.
He says the Iraq war was a mistake - both in its inception and prosecution - but, if elected, he will train the Iraqis better, get more allies to contribute, spend more money, send more troops, and get them home sooner. I got that right?

My point would be: If he feels the war was a mistake, then he should say that he will withdraw troops immediately. Why? Because the commander-in-chief cannot commit more troops or attract allies and their troops to a cause that he feels is in error. Obviously therefore, Kerry must recognize (despite low brow political rhetoric to the contrary) that what is happening in Iraq is in some way critical to the interests of the US, our security and that of future generations. Why else would he commit more troops to the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, etc...? If he feels it's wrong then quit - don't send more of our guys off to die.

He was very hawkish, from what I saw, in the primaries against Dean, et al. But his position on the war (the one we saw last night) has been carefully formulated with polls in mind, to attract the anti-war and anti-Bush voters, yet still appeal to swing voters who feel the war is justified. It is a lawyer's position. Maybe I'm being overly ideological, but I would like my President to stand for something other than his own political gain.

I think the notion that Kerry would prosecute the war better than the current administration is absurd. Does anybody actually believe that?

I think that Vietnam was a totally different ball of wax. I'm not sure how I feel about that war. But from what I saw of Kerry's testimony before Congress, accusing his fellow soldiers of widespread atrocities despite his narrow view of the war, he does not understand the proper way to dissent in time of war.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 08:42 PM
In reply to:

I think the notion that Kerry would prosecute the war better than the current administration is absurd. Does anybody actually believe that?


I do, for one. You call him a political whore, and I can't completely deny it. The thing is, there is such great political pressure to do Iraq differently, so to speak -- a pressure that President Bush completely ignores -- that Kerry's whoreishness picks up on. On the other hand, being a political whore can get you in bed with the wrong people.

In reply to:

accusing his fellow soldiers of widespread atrocities despite his narrow view of the war, he does not understand the proper way to dissent in time of war.


I agree.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 09:28 PM
Ringmir - You've boiled it down nicely. The problem is, that's his position on one day and not on others. He has consistently stated that this is "The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time".....So, why did you vote for it?...Why did you say that you supported the Presidents efforts? He consistently calls Bush a Liar (Yes, he has used the term LIE) about WMDs, yet he has clearly stated in the past that Hussein had WMDs and that "the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real". Even earlier, he states "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest." Yet, he continues to say that the President misled the country. He continues to chant the "No WMDs" mantra.

John Kerry is a pathetic semblance of a leader, politician, and a man. A person with honor would not lie to the face of the American people like that. A person of honor would not seek to lead a nation/world without having the personal conviction to take ownership of his words and suffer the consequences. He is nothing but a power-hungry cowardly snake. He slithers away from the truth and accountability using slight of hand, wordplay, distortion, and distraction. The thought of such a man controlling the fate of my daughter makes me want to puke. I think I need to get a big stiff drink to help wash away the cold sweat that I just got.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 09:33 PM
Don't hold back Turbo...tell us what you really think.


Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 10:03 PM
Spiff, bilateral talks with North Korea would be a disaster. The US position is that the talks must be multilateral, because there are many interested parties. Japan, South Korea, China and Russia, nations most directly effected by North Korea's nuclear program, and in the case of China, the nation most responsible for this criminal proliferation. If we have bilateral talks, it would reinforce North Korea's position that Japan and South Korea are nothing more than US puppet states and would not advance the cause. Why not? Because we cannot speak for South Korea and Japan.

Do you really think that the agreements made under Clinton represented progress? Spiff, they blackmailed us, took the oil and food we provided and then welched on the deal by going forward with their nuclear weapons program anyway. Do you suggest we do that again? That would be absurd.

The only way to make progress in the effort to rid the peninsula of nuclear weapons is if China insists on it.

You have to understand that North Korea is the most insulated totalitarian police state in the world. It is a criminal state run by mad men. The threat is that North Korea will sell nuclear weapons/technology to Arab states, and indeed, North Korea was a key player in the A.Q. Kahn network, as well as Libya's and Pakistan's program. Of course it's not all North Korea's fault, in that obviously China uses North Korea as its cat's paw to proliferate this WMD technology among criminal states.

So, hopefully, as China liberalizes its markets it will progress politically as well. That progress will be marked by China using its enormous economic influence over North Korea as leverage to induce North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. If we enter into bilateral talks with North Korea, as North Korea insists, it takes the pressure off China and deprives the world of its only real leverage against the depraved North Korean regime run by an alcoholic sex maniac.

What happened to liberals? Once liberals were noted for their commitment to human rights and their criticism of gross offenders. Liberalism has morphed into something which now tolerates and makes excuses for the most egregious human rights violators and directs all its criticism at the United States and Israel. We've come a long way, from a dignified political voice to one too silly to take seriously.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 11:34 PM
"If we enter into bilateral talks with North Korea, as North Korea insists, it takes the pressure off China and deprives the world of its only real leverage against the depraved North Korean regime run by an alcoholic sex maniac."

I didn't know bigjohn was the leader of North Korea!

Seriously though, and please correct me if I'm wrong, nuclear waepons leave a tell tale signature after they have been used - it can be determined who made the bomb, right? I don't think the Koreans would be as willing to risk annhilation as the Iranians would be.

So, even though the Korean leadership is nuts, I get the feeling that their sabre rattling is calculated to produce a specific goal - acceptance. The loss of sanctions and perhaps eventual take over of S Korea. But at least it seems they have a policy goal that is not simply the destruction of the US and the glorification of Islam. Nobody's thrilled about the North Koreans having nukes, but a nuclear armed Iran (and Pakistan's weapons if that gov't should fail) seems far, far, far more threatening to us.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 10/01/04 11:52 PM
I agree, BigWill, the North Korean regime is a 'shakedown' artist, living it up while its people eat grass and field stubble. Oh, the joy of the only remaining pure Stalinist regime on the planet.
Posted By: jtmccoy Re: OT: politics - 10/02/04 09:39 PM
BigWill,

As much as I disagree with you on some of your other points (so, you're saying you DON'T like John Kerry, right?), I think you're right on in your assessment of N. Korea and Kim Jong-il. Not to sound all pretentious, but I grew up in Korea and I believe I have an intimate understanding of the Korean culture and their way of thinking. Will, you're right--a lot of what the North Koreans are doing is posturing and bluffing. In a way, you have to respect the political savvy of both South and North Korean leadership. In all fairness, the Korean peninsula should be a colony of either China, Russia, Japan, or the U.S. at this point, but the fact that such a small country has been able to survive through so much war and takeover with a very distinct culture still intact is a reflection of the political prowess of leaders like Park Chung-hee and his successors in the South and Kim Il-sung and his son, Kim Jong-il in the North. What they've lacked in military might (relative to the surrounding world powers), they've made up in political savvy.

North Korea is motivated by one thing only--survival--in particular the surivival of the regime of Kim Jong-il. Unlike Islamic fanatics, they have no goal to take over the rest of the world, and they are not self-destructive. In fact, the country's national "religion" is called "Juche," which translates as "self-reliance."

My personal belief is that you have to treat North Korea much like we treated the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Continue to help protect South Korea, and pressure other countries, especially China, through economic and trade policies to continue to pressure North Korea to change its ways. Like the U.S.S.R., as North Korea's economy continues to detiorate, the government will naturally collapse as a result--maybe not until Kim Jong-il dies, but it is just a matter of time. However, and this is very important in Korean culture, we have to continue to let North Korea know that we're still the toughest, baddest S.O.B. on the block, and that they don't have a shot against us. At the same time, we also have to still be willing to aid the North Korean people through food and medical relief if they're willing to disarm. Perhaps tell them they have to let inspectors in if they want relief, not because we believe they'll actually honor the agreement, but because it allows more Western influence to infiltrate their culture. You see, the North Koreans are totally in the dark as far as the rest of the world is concerned. The more aware they are of their own backwardness and the great success of democracy and capitalism in South Korea, the more unwilling they're going to be to keep putting up with the current state of affairs. I know several Americans who are now living in North Korea (which would've been unthinkable ten years ago), and they can attest to this. Already, North Korea is opening up more than we could ever imagine.

I'm not at all worried about North Korea actually using nukes. They will NEVER use them, because they know that would be suicide. I am a lot more worried about North Korea selling them in secret to some nutty Islamic terrorist group. That's the real issue that has to be tackled.

Posted By: jtmccoy Re: OT: politics - 10/02/04 09:45 PM
One other thing,

The one thing we cannot do is invade North Korea like we did Iraq. They have a standing army of 1.5 million extremely well-trained troops and could immediately conscript millions more. We would likely eventually win, but it would be a blood bath on a scale that this generation of Americans could never handle. It would also lead to the near-destruction of South Korea as North Korea would quickly overrun Seoul as a counterattack.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/02/04 10:37 PM
How could you disagree with me on anything? I spend a lot of time thinking this stuff through.

And, for the record, I would like to recant my statement that Kerry "won" the debate. He benefited from the debate. He looked Presidential, he sounded Presidential, he earned big style points. But, as we discussed earlier with regards to the fickle swing voters, an election shouldn't be determined by the style of a person's delivery, his height, his posture, or his facial expressions. If that kind of stuff is what you base your decision on, then you shouldn't be voting at all.



Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 10/02/04 11:45 PM
So first he won, and now he only benefited? So which is it? Is this flip-flopping I hear, from a Bush supporter?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 01:21 AM
LOL! Admitting an error? That's very un-Bush-like.
Posted By: jtmccoy Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 03:53 AM
In regards to the debate:

Face it, Kerry mopped the floor with Bush, both in terms of style AND substance. I love the new Republican spin that says, yeah, Kerry won a lot of style points, but he again was just flip-flopping blah blah blah blah....face it, YOUR MAN LOST and looked like an idiot in doing so.

Basic synopsis of Bush's debate: "Well, uhhh, it's really, uhhhh, hard bein' president, and we got ourselves a tough fight o'er der in Iraq, and it's, uhhh, really hard, and uhhh, it's gonna take some time to win, but uhhhh, we're workin' hard, and we gotta be strong...we gotta be strong. (*nod head meaningfully, sigh, then look over at Kerry with a smirk as if it say, "Top that, ya little pansy!"*).

Now a few points: I will be the first to admit Kerry has at times seemingly contradicted himself. So has Bush. So has every candidate that's ever run for office. As for his stance on Iraq, I've done quite a bit of research, and honestly, he's been pretty consistent (but not completely, I'll give you that), as has already been pointed out in this forum. However, why don't we discuss Bush's attempt to stonewall the 9/11 commission? Let's see: 3,000 people killed in the WTC, but we better not investigate it because it might come out that it was partly our fault! And then when the 9/11 commission does finally happen, he blocks his little toadies from testifying under oath! What the hell does that imply?!? And when it's finally all wrapped up, he practically takes credit for the commission, talking about how valuable it was blah blah blah.

Another point: It DOES matter how the President comes across and that the President does seem "Presidential" as Kerry did Thursday night--articulate, calm, confident, knowledgeable, and empathic. The President is our representative to the rest of the world, and I, for one, would personally prefer one who can speak eloquently, in complete sentences, and display some understanding of the complexities of foreign diplomacy.

Which brings me to a final point (and then I need a stiff drink as well). I hate it when Republicans say that by trying to work with other major world powers (no, Poland is not a major world power) and the U.N. to address global issues that we are allowing other nations to determine our foreign policy. Uh, noooo, we're actually "doing" foreign policy, the concept of which is utterly lost on this embarrasment we somehow got stuck with as our President.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 04:21 AM
haha, very funny. I'm a flip-flopper.

Seriously though, how does Kerry's final(?) position that the war is a mistake - but he'll expand it and get others to join in - make any sense?
If it was a mistake then say, "I will rectify that mistake by pulling out of Iraq."
Anybody have an answer for me?
Posted By: jtmccoy Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 04:30 AM
Yo BigWill,

Because now that we are presently stuck in Iraq, we gotta get the job done right. To pull out now would be a betrayal of the Iraqi people and would lead to an even bigger mess than the one we're already in. Kerry realizes that. Basically he sees his job as President as cleaning up the mess that Bush has made.

By the way, even though I rip on Bush, it's all in good fun. Nothing personal and no hard feelings, right? I like everybody on this forum, Dems and Reps alike.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 05:23 PM
"Because now that we are presently stuck in Iraq, we gotta get the job done right. To pull out now would be a betrayal of the Iraqi people and would lead to an even bigger mess than the one we're already in. Kerry realizes that. Basically he sees his job as President as cleaning up the mess that Bush has made."

I figured that would be the response. Should we have fought in Vietnam indefinitely - rather than betray the Vietnamese people? Korea? Cuba? Somalia? If there is no overwhelming US interest in Iraq, then you should want our troops to come home. As Michael Moore asked O'Reilly, "Would you sacrifice your son for Fallujah?"

The prosecution of a war by a President who thinks it is a mistake, but feels obligated to continue - and even expand operations, is guaranteed to end poorly. Your quagmire realized. Of course, Kerry and the Democrats will be blameless for "Bush's mess".
BTW, not a Republican.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 05:34 PM
Kerry can do things differently though, and at least have a goal of getting out at some point, and starting to try to get events headed in the right direction so we can work on getting out. Bush doesn't seem to have any plan other then to push forward exactly as we are now.
Posted By: jtmccoy Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 06:06 PM
Hey Will,

You see, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Somalia, and Iraq are all different cases. Should we have kept fighting in Korea until the entire peninsula was unified--yeah, I think so. The goals were very clear, who the enemy was was very clear. Also, the Koreans wanted us there to help keep the communists out. They were and have been our strong allies Who the enemy was was very clear. Not so in the case of Vietnam, so no, I don't think we should have kept fighting in Vietnam, at least not by using the same tactics we were. Our motivations for fighting there were different than the the motivations the South Vietnamese had. They didn't fear and hate the communists like the Koreans did, who the enemy was was not always, they didn't really want us there clear, etc., etc. Basically, totally different time, totally different situation. As for Cuba, we've never fought a war there, so I'm not sure what you meant there. As for Somalia, I'll have to admit that I haven't done enough research to reply to that either. I think we did it right in Kosovo (overall) though. As for Iraq, I'm glad Hussein is no longer in power, but the way we've gone about things has created a huge mess that I think could've been avoided.

See, the issue is now is strategy...Bush's (if he even has a strategy) simply is not working, and I think it's time we pull our heads out the sand and acknowledge that. He and his administration really have made a colossal mess over there.

It's very fair of Kerry and his supporters to say the strategy is not working, that Iraq is in a mess, and that there needs to be a new administration who will right the wrongs of the past administration. We believe success is still possible in Iraq, but not with Bush.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 06:35 PM
Hi jtmccoy, I think the reason we didn't keep fighting in Korea until the entire peninsula was unified was because the Chinese entered the fight and we were unable to defeat them in an Asian ground war without a complete national military mobilization and perhaps the use of nuclear weapons.

I'm a life-long democrat, but I understand that Bush's policy in Iraq presents an enormous opportunity not only to advance US foreign policy interests, but one which could fundamentally change the character of Mid East political life. Now, the idea of introducing a democratic form of government into a Mid East country may be extremely difficult given the total absence of any democratic experience or institutions, but if successful, what a "lamp unto the nations" a democratic Iraq would present to its neighbors.

I don't think there's any doubt but that Iraq had WMD, after all, they used them frequently and enthusiastically. France, Russian and China would have undone the sanctions regime against Iraq and once the real oil money started to flow, is there any doubt but that Saddam Hussein would have acquired WMD?

If the sanctions regime and no-fly zone restrictions collapsed what would have been the fate of the Kurds in northern Iraq? I'd venture a guess based on Saddam's previous behavior, the Ba'athist Nazis would have irradicated them. Turkey would not have protested. Europe may have mumbled "isn't that terrible," but do you think the EU would have raised a shout against another systematic effort to murder Kurds?

Yes, the Ba'athist Nazis from Syria are doing their best to undermine a democratic state in Iraq, as are the mullahs of Iran and the Jihadists from all over the Uma, so Iraq has become the place of battle between civilization and Jihad.

I think Bush is a not terribly bright ass kicking cowboy who sees the world in black and white, good and evil. I think that is exactly what we need at this point in time.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 09:02 PM
'SC sucks (just kidding, I hope my Bruins don't get embarassed ).

By mentioning Cuba, I was referring to how JFK left the freedom fighters hangin' at the Bay of Pigs. We have no obligation to protect everybody, but in general it probably is a good idea to stick to your commitments.

I talked about this before, but that was many pages ago: From the moment Bush announced our plans to invade Afghanistan, the nattering naybobs of negativism - in the gov't and the media - have been forecasting disaster for the US. Remember the talk about how Afghanistan was the Russians' Vietnam? Remember the dire predictions that the same fate would befall us? Why should we be able to succeed in a guerilla war in difficult terrain where the Russians could not? But the overwhelming victory there didn't shut them up for long.
Invade Iraq!? "That's no pushover like Afghanistan," they shouted, "Bush is really going to get us clobbered." While 1050 casualties is sad, it is far less than the numbers originally predicted by the-sky-is-falling groups. Iraq collapsed like a house of cards because it was an illegitimate regime. The folks that are "fighting" there - minus the Sunni Saddam loyalists - will eventually be killed or lose their int'l funding. The suicide bomber that blew up 35 Iraqi children should give us plenty of indication that their cause is illegitimate and will not last.
What policy could there be but continue?
Posted By: jtmccoy Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 09:12 PM
Oh god, a Republican AND a Bruin fan...why are we still even speaking?!?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/03/04 10:53 PM
I said I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN.

But I am a HUGE Bruins fan. My older brother played football there in the early '80s and my little brother played in the mid '90s, so I've seen them stomp the Trojans many times in person (but not lately, though ).

I have a lot of respect for Pete Carrol and Norm Chow, but it appears that team needs a little more discipline right now, a little more focus. They've only been able to put it all together once this year from what I've seen.
Posted By: jtmccoy Re: OT: politics - 10/04/04 12:47 AM
Will,

No kidding! Mind telling me who your bros were that played there. I understand if you want to remain anonymous, but I'd be really interested to find out. I attended SC from '94-'2000 for my Bachelor's and Master's and hardly ever missed a home game. Those were some rough years for us! 8 years in a row...ouch! It's time for some payback. And of course, just when I move out to Texas USC turns into annual BCS contenders.

Truth is, as much as I love the rivalry with UCLA, I've always kinda respected your guys and don't really hate them as much as I should (not saying I like them either). I hate Stanford MUCH more! UCLA's always been a pretty classy program, and I'm glad to see them turning things around a bit this season. It makes the rivalry that much sweeter.

-JT
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/04/04 01:32 AM
Sent you a PM. Don't want ringmir getting pissed over us hi-jacking his thread! LOL
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 10/04/04 04:44 AM
I hear a lot of this "Kerry has a chance to do thing differently" position. I also hear Kerry saying that this war in Iraq is a colossel mess and that he would have done things differently. Let's dig into that a bit....

If memory serves, Kerry's position is that he has always advocated that he would have created a broader coalition and given the UN weapon's inspectors more time. At the same time, he has historically stated that Iraq was a grave threat to the safety of America and that he supported the President's efforts.

Now, let's put aside any of Kerry's subsequent changes in position and take those above and try to reason something out.....

However scarey it may be, envision President John Kerry. He has just successfully rid Afghaninstan of the Taliban tyrany and he is now looking to continue with this "War on Terror" that he started following 9/11.

Using Kerry's own position that Iraq is a grave threat to the US, it is natural for him to shift his attention to Iraq. He may delay this and spend more time in Afghanistan (which he has said), but the issue has to come up, because they are a grave threat.

What does he do? Being the President and a supporter of the UN, he has to go to them. Given his two assertions that he would have created a broader coalition and let the UN weapon's inspectors have more time, it's fair to assume that he would pressure the UN to get the weapons inspectors back on the ground.

Now, since this has been going on for over ten years in a continual trend of defiance and deceit, it's fair to assume that this would not change. Hussein would continue to completely control the UNSCUM inspector actions and then frequently throw them out of the country in defiance.

So, what we have is another four years of control via appeasement. Hussein gets to continue to defy the UN, while maintaining unending prosperity with it's Oil For Food deals. The entire time, Al Qaida terrorists continue to train in camps in northern Iraq and maintain access to Iraqi WMDs, which are confirmed to have existed by UNSCUM at the end of the original Gulf war. By allowing Hussein to remain in power and continue his previous tactics, we have now allowed him to continue to harbor the same terrrorists responsible for 9/11....Even though we had proof that these terrorists were willing to do anything to harm US interests, we have now made a conscious decision to allow this situation to continue. So, the next 9/11 incident to follow is due in part to our decision to maintain the status quo.

Now, let's assume that there was too much political pressure on President Kerry to continue to allow Hussein to defy the UN. Though he's against war, he is forced to take action. Using his second assertion from above, he would again go the UN and make a concerted effort to build a "broad coalition", which basically means that he would seek to involve France, Germany, and Russia (the big guys). Given his statements to Congress from 2002 (I believe), Kerry was already aware that none of these powers had interest in pursuing this path. Given what we now know about the deals that were in place between those three countries and Iraq, it's a fair assumption that even the great powers of pursuasion of President Kerry were to prove ineffective at bringing them onboard.

So, as President of the United States, John Kerry now is faced with having to follow through with his threats and take action in what he believes to be a threat the safety of US.

So, he goes it alone. The US is successful in removing Hussein very rapidly. Then, as we have seen, the US now gets mired in a gorilla war w/ insurgents from Iraq and neighboring countries.

The moral of this story is that Kerry is again talking out of his A$$. He knows that our "allies", had no intention of taking part in any actions that would endanger their respective deals w/ Iraq. Unless he's an idiot, he's well aware that the UN was never going to gain the cooperation of Hussein and get successful inspections by UNSCUM. So, given that, the only conclusion that one can make is that the one thing that he could have done differently is to continue to bury his head in the sand like his predecessor and allow Hussein to defy the UN and continue to harbor terrorists.

Any other course of action on Kerry's part would have led him to the same place in which we find ourselves. The only difference is that Kerry would have long since caved to political pressure, pulled out our troops, and shown the world that US is all bark and no bite.

I'll state it again....John Kerry is nothing but a spineless used car salesman who lives only for the furtherance of his own political career. If that's the type of person that you want to be in charge of the safety of your children and/or loved ones, then go ahead and vote for him......After all, anybody but Bush, right?
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 10/04/04 12:02 PM
I think you are making a lot of assumptions in the way things would turn out based on how you see things.

Things aren't going well over there now, but Bush wants to blindly push ahead anyway. He still thinks he is fighting a traditional war and not a guerrila one.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 10/04/04 02:01 PM
You are correct. Predicting what would have happened in this scenario definitely contains a level of speculation. I will give you that. My intent was truly to focus on Kerry's rhetoric. He slings these grand statements around about how he would have done things differently and how Bush has screwed things up. The problem is that his own positions and statement from the past taken with what we now know to be the facts of the situation in Iraq do not remotely support his assertions. Like a peacock, he is prancing around like he is the grand solution with plenty of "I told you so's". The problem is that he didn't tell him so....He wouldn't have been able to do things differently....and he doesn't have a viable solution to this quandry we're in over there.

As usual, he is talking out of his A$$....and he's being allowed to do so unchecked by the media.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/04/04 04:23 PM
Turbodog, there are lots of variables in such a prediction, but the one constant (if a Pres Kerry had wanted to go to war with Iraq) would be the UN opposition to an invasion of Iraq. The US would never have been able to secure a resolution and mount a coalition like the one in the first Gulf War. A coalition, BTW, which did not include brave Senator Kerry - he was one of the very few to oppose that action against Saddam!

"Things aren't going well over there now, but Bush wants to blindly push ahead anyway. He still thinks he is fighting a traditional war and not a guerrila one."

Once again, I challenge the "big lie" that everybody is repeating. It is not massive insurrection over there but isolated terrorist-type activities by a few thousand bad guys in a country of 25 million. They're brutal and their activities are sometimes spectacular and devastating, but I think the TV news definitely gives people the impression that the situation is worse than it really is.

I'm not sure who deserves the credit for the planning and execution of the Afghan and Iraq operations, but the military has been extremely impressive in both cases. The number of guys we've lost is pretty small as wars go, historically speaking.
The traditional war approach - wide battle lines that advance on the enemy and secure ground inch by inch - is exactly what the military did NOT do in Iraq. I don't know if Rumsfeld deserves the credit, the generals or what, but they're doing an awesome job, IMO. Hopefully, whoever is calling the shots in the military won't be replaced should we have a change of leadership in the White House.
Posted By: Riffman Safire article - 10/04/04 06:52 PM
Interesting article from Safire in today's NY Times calling Kerry the newest neocon. I recommend that people read it. All of this is supported by reading the debate transcripts.

1. He wants to kill the insurgency in Fallujah and elsewhere. KILL!

2. He will be in Iraq for the next four years asking men "to die for a mistake". DIE!

3. He wants to use the military to influence African nations re Sudan and will commit military to Sudan. NEOCON!

4. Kerry wants to shred multilateralism for N. Korea favoring bilateral talks. GO IT ALONE!

5. Kerry adopts the doctrine of preemption, saying it was our doctrine throughout the cold war. (Now, if this doesn't prove what a dumbass Kerry is then I don't know what does). NEOCON! HELL, APPARENTLY WE'VE BEEN NEOCON FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS!


Posted By: jorge016 Re: Safire article - 10/04/04 07:39 PM
Safire is as full of it as any other politico turned "journalist". Here's one for you

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-08.htm
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Safire article - 10/04/04 08:39 PM
Here it is in a Link
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Safire article - 10/04/04 08:45 PM
I can't believe that I just unwittingly contributed to the posting of left-wing material....the horror.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Safire article - 10/04/04 11:21 PM
The last line from that article:

"Under the cover of opinion journalism, he (Safire) is dishing out disinformation. How is that of service to the readers of The New York Times?"

To counter the disinformation the rest of the NY Times dishes out?

Anybody heard of Cynthia Tucker? She's a moron AND a traitor. One of the "America sucks" liberal crowd (or are we now supposed to call them "progressives")? How did she ever get in print?
Posted By: Riffman Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 02:25 PM
The simple fact is all of these assertions can be backed up by what Kerry said in the debate. Read the transcript.

I think I'm going to skip watching the debates and read the transcripts only. Hearing Bush say "um" a thousand times is quite unpleasant and mortifying...not to mention watching Kerry swing his arms around also.


Posted By: Riffman Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 02:40 PM
Jorge, I read the Corn article. These days its really tough to distinguish facts over propaganda. We pick our poison.

Wow. I just noticed Tom Hayden writes for this .org. What a poor, uneducated soul he is.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 03:11 PM
I didn't know Hayden was still kicking around. I don't follow the .org, but have followed Safire since his days in the Nixon administration. I thought the thread needed a bit of balance as far as links. I'll be torn between the VP debate and Twins/Yankee tilt tonight. I'm thinking I'd rather watch Johan (can you say Cy Young)Santana than Cheney/Edwards, although it should be good theater.
Posted By: Riffman Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 03:27 PM
Balance is good! I don't follow baseball because I live in Pittsburgh, where baseball is dead once Steelers season starts. : )
Posted By: bigjohn Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 03:32 PM
no kidding with the "um"?? i was like , 'come on george.. just say it.......um?'

and if i heard him say, "its hard work" one more time.. lord help me..dubya is a good 'ole boy.. and i am a good 'ole boy.. but that dont make either of us qualified to be president..

bigjohn
Posted By: bigjohn Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 03:34 PM
In reply to:

baseball is dead once Steelers season starts. : )



funny???

i thought 'football' was dead once the steelers season starts..

i know, OT.. i will take it to the football thread!!

bigjohn
Posted By: Riffman Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 03:42 PM
That debate had a big effect on me. I have big questions as to who I'm going to vote for. Bush's inability to articulate thoughts has led me to question my vote. Sure its late in the game, but something about his behavior and performance in that debate finally affected me. I'll probably still vote for the guy who I think has the best ideology.
Posted By: Riffman Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 03:44 PM
oh geez Big John, I'm not talking to a Cowboy's fan am I?
Posted By: BigWill Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 04:13 PM
Bush articulated fairly well for the first half of the debate, but seemed to run out of steam after that. He also seemed to be unwilling to go very negative on Kerry.
I think they'll change their tact in the next debate. Kerry has opened the door WIDE OPEN for someone to rip his foreign policy. Notice how the Kerry campaign is suddenly trying to get off foreign policy as fast as they can, hoping the impression voters have from the debate (nice hair! nice enunciation! nice posture!) will last, and they can shift focus to populist issues like health care and tax the rich, before Kerry's ludicrous statements on Iraq sink him.
Anybody else read the AP interview of the former Iraqi colonel who is one of the leaders of the insurgents in Fallujah? Basically he was gloating about the anti-war statemnets from Kerry and how they have helped the insurgents morale and recruitment. That is bad, bad, bad.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 04:20 PM
Please post the link if you have it. I'd like to read that.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 04:27 PM
Big Will, Maybe the opportunistic Carl Rove found himself an Iraqi colonel. How's that for conspiracy theory. I thought Bush did well as long as he stuck to the script. He's a genuinely good communicator as long as he doesn't have to put much thought into what's coming out of his mouth. His ability to think on his feet appears questionable. I know it's "hard work" to think on your feet.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 04:44 PM
In reply to:

oh geez Big John, I'm not talking to a Cowboy's fan am I?



you see my flag, dont ya??

we are getting dangerously close to jacking the politics thread.. after a 1000 or so responses, i reckon we should avoid that..

there is a football thread.. we can discuss the a$$ whuppin the cowboys are gonna put on the steelers in 2 weeks, in that thread.

bigjohn
Posted By: Riffman Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 06:20 PM
Coincidentally, there is a Stephen Hayes article at weeklystandard.com on the al- Qaeda links with Hussein. Internal Iraqi documents use the word "relationship". This was also disclosed in the NY Times. Bin Laden merely talking to a man such as Hussein is enough for me. Also of note in the article:

"According to the 9/11 report, "sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."

Most importantly, the idea that a secular Hussein and fanatical bin Laden could not have a relationship because of this difference, bears an assumption that has been proven unworthy. Hussein has had relations in the past with religious fanatics.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Safire article - 10/05/04 06:57 PM
Couldn't find it on-line, but his name is Abu Thar and he was interviewed in Fallujah by an Iraqi reporter. "We see the conflicting statements by (US leaders) on Iraq as another sign of their defeat," the paper quotes him.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: Safire article - 10/06/04 04:42 AM
BigWill,

So now Kerry is a traitor? That's a very large and well-greased slippery slope, my friend. What you're saying is that any public figure who speaks out against the war is aiding the enemy because it boosts their morale, correct?

So Kerry's choice is either support the President or aid the enemy? I would not be surprised if this story was hand-selected for dissemination by Bush's campaign.
Posted By: Zarak Re: Safire article - 10/06/04 10:53 AM
I only saw the second half of the debates last night, and even then I wasn't fully focused on it. I did catch Edwards closing remarks though, which I thought were very well done. He did them in a way that he was talking to each person sitting in their family room (or whereever they were watching from) and the things he was saying were true, and just emphasized a change is needed. It's not the same seeing it in writing as it is as seeing him deliver it, but here it is anyway.

EDWARDS: "Thank you.

Thank you, Gwen.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for being here.

You know, when I was young and growing up, I remember coming down the steps into the kitchen, early in the morning, and I would see the glow of the television.

And I‘d see my father sitting at a table. He wasn‘t paying bills, and he wasn‘t doing paperwork from work.

What he was doing was learning math on television.

Now, he didn‘t have a college education, but he was doing what he could do to get a better job in the mill where he worked. I was proud of him. I‘m still proud of him.

And I was also hopeful, because I knew that I lived in a country where I could get a college education.

Here‘s the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America.

But that light is flickering today.

Now, I know that the vice president and the president don‘t see it, but you do.

You see it when your incomes are going down and the cost of everything, college tuition, health care—is going through the roof. You see it when you sit at your table each night and there‘s an empty chair because a loved one is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. What they‘re going to give you is four more years of the same.

John Kerry and I believe that we can do better. We believe in a strong middle-class in this country. That‘s why we have a plan to create jobs, getting rid of tax cuts for companies outsourcing your jobs; give tax cuts to companies that‘ll keep jobs here in America.

That‘s why we have a health care plan. That‘s why we have a plan to keep you safe and to fix this mess in Iraq.

The truth is that every four years you get to decide. You have the ability to decide where America‘s going to go. John Kerry and I are asking you to give us the power to fight for you, to fight to keep that dream in America, that I saw as a young man, alive for every parent sitting at that kitchen table."


Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Safire article - 10/06/04 11:58 AM
PM - The issue is not talking against the war. The issue is his ever-changing position on the war. As I've said before, Kerry continues to prance around blasting the President on things that he previously supported. He continues to call the President a liar and distort facts to gain political points. The world is watching this and the terrorists are loving the show. What better than to watch a presidential candidate trash the President, the coalition, and the Iraqi interim government all in the same sitting? No one ever talks about the stories of Vietnam POWs having the words of Kerry showered over them during torture sessions, because it's too inflamatory for the media. Today, you won't hear the mainstream media bring up the point that Kerry's pathetic tactics are potentially fueling the oppposition and endangering our troops. I'll guarantee you this, they're watching and they're loving what they are seeing.

Zarak - As far as Edwards' closing statements go.....BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!! Edwards got his a$$ handed to him by the VP.....clean and simple. Edwards sat there all night spewing out the tired Dem rhetoric while Cheney confounded him with his level of knowledge on issues. When asked to make statements about himself without using Kerry's name at all, he couldn't do it....he did it twice and when he didn't use his name, he would talk about "we". It was pathetic. The man is completely unprepared for the job and it was evident. When asked about his level of inexperience and what makes him a viable candidate, he completely sidestepped the question and picked up his Kerry pom-poms. It was painful. If I didn't know better, Kerry was under the table feeding him lines or doing something else.

Cheney spoke in his normal dry tone, I'll give you that. However, the content of his dialog was much richer than his opponent's. You could tell over and over that he could continue his discussion for much longer than the alotted time...something you didn't see in Edwards. He pounded home what Bush couldn't in the debate. He pounded home a clean message that the Senate records of both Edwards and Kerry do not reflect the core consistent values and determination that is necessary to be commander and chief. He potently slammed Edwards for the fact that he has the worst absentee record in the Senate, which Edwards couldn't rebut....because he is a "minnie-me" of Kerry....a greesy politician at heart that is there not to get work done, but to forward his career.

When discussing taxes, Cheney eloquently clarified how many small-business owners file their taxes as personal income, which would imply that, while the Bush tax cut applied to middle income families directly, they also applied to small business owners which supply the majority of new jobs in this country. Edwards blew this off and returned with the normal tired argument about the rich people by the pool getting tax cuts.....completely inflamatory remarks meant to divert attention away from Cheney's effective point.

When Edwards was posed with the question of how he and Kerry would build this broader coalition when the French and Germans have already stated their strong intent not to take part regardless of the election outcome, he completely sidestepped it with pie-in-the-sky remarks about how success breeds cooperation....how success in Iraq would inspire them to participate.....blah blah blah. When asked about how they planned to bring about that success, he started by saying that Bush/Cheney offer more of the same and then he proceeded to blurt out exactly what Bush/Cheney have been moving towards all along.....again exposing that they have no plan, except to execute the Bush/Cheney plan.

At the end of the day, we have a VP that the libs love to hate, because they see him as a "Big Business" whore. What they won't admit is that he has more government experience than any VP or President in history. What they'll never admit is that his knowledge-base on both foreign and domestic affairs is astounding. What they definitely won't admit is that their VP candidate and even their Pres candidate do not have the basic understanding, the record, the consistency, or the experience necessary to hold the highest position in the free world.

The pathetic part is that the mindless drones out there in the world either tuned out or blindly cheered for Edwards because Cheney was not a picture of flambouyance. Our only hope is that those with a moderate level of intelligence and education listened hard enough to the substance of each man's arguments. If so, then they would have heard the same debate that I heard.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: Safire article - 10/06/04 12:01 PM
By the way Zarak, that last comment was not aimed at you for zoning out. I am speaking more in the general about our general public's MTV attention span and the relatively inept and uninformed electorate in this country....the ones that vote based upon how someone looks and not on the substance of their message.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: Safire article - 10/06/04 01:42 PM
Edwards got his A$$ handed to him? What debate did you see or has your partisanship completely clouded your judgement. 2 politicians spewing the party line-no surprises, nothing new, no winner, no loser. This so-called debate will prove inconsequential to this election. What scares me about the 2 VP wannabees is I've got the choice of a "big-business whore" or a politico with less experience than the ex-Governor of Texas-now President to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. It appears to me Bush is running a little scared this week-after the next debate is will probably be Kerry's turn to be slightly behind in the polls. The polls mean little until November.
Posted By: Zarak Re: Safire article - 10/06/04 01:53 PM
As I said, I didn't pay enough attention to this debate to give an informed opinion of who won or lost. I'd like to hear what some other people think (I knew you'd say the Republicans won Turbo)
Posted By: bigjohn Re: Safire article - 10/06/04 02:15 PM
i agree with jorge, it was a draw.. they both repeated the same things we heard from dubya and kerry during last weeks debate. there was NO clear winner, and that was the general idea on most of the talk shows after the debate.

i did find it interesting how cheney side stepped the new announcements made by the #1 US administrator in iraq, paul bremer, that they never had the proper ground force needed, and the entire war scenario was never properly planned or thought out by the govt. and, i seemed awful funny that rumsfeld has a press conference yesterday and announces that he himself hasnt seen a direct link between sadaam hussein and the al quida. ? WHAT???

it seems to me that the republicans are starting to buckle under the stress of their decisions.. and some people are starting to try and cleanse themselves of bush's inability to EVER admit he made a mistake. i really think the republicans are scrambling, it if kerry puts the heat on bush again in the next debate, its gonna get worse.

bigjohn
Posted By: MarkSJohnson Re: Safire article - 10/06/04 03:12 PM
Turbodog1 wrote:
When discussing taxes, Cheney eloquently clarified how many small-business owners file their taxes as personal income, which would imply that, while the Bush tax cut applied to middle income families directly, they also applied to small business owners which supply the majority of new jobs in this country.



I told myself that I wouldn't get involved in politics here, as I get enough/give enough in other forums, but I thought I would throw out one small post as a small business owner:

Any business owner that is small enough to be filing their taxes as an individual is not at all likely to have a single employee... not to mention several. To think that the tiny Bush tax cut/refund would cause any employer to rush out and hire more employees is flat out wrong. The tax cut doesn't even touch the tens of thousands of dollars a year even a minimal part-time employee costs with salary and worker's Comp insurance, etc..

Those small businesses that supply so many jobs are often considered business' of sixty or even twenty employees or less... far, far beyond the situation where their taxes are filed as an "individual", i.e., as in "sole proprietor"...



Posted By: TurboDog1 OT: Politics - 10/06/04 04:11 PM
OK...Let's take it step by step.

First of all, it looks like Cheney was talking smack with the meeting Edwards for the first time comment. It was a solid punch, but foolish for him to throw knowing that the media was going to call him on it.

Zarak - Don't get me wrong on this. I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't believe it. I watched the pres debate and I'll fully agree that Bush got his A$$ handed to him. As I've said before, I am only a Bush fan right now because the other side put up a poor alternative. Give me a strong consistent moderate Democrat and I would have jumped onboard.

Jorge - I listened to that debate very closely. What I was hearing from both sides might have been what they've said before. I'll give you that. However, I was focusing on the substance of the remarks. On Cheney's side, I was hearing extensive knowledge on subjects and well thought out responses. On Edwards' side, I was hearing the same inflamatory pie-in-the-sky sound-bytes that we hear over and over. Cheney was thinking through his questions and Edwards was reading from a bullet-list in his head. This was very evident when a question was asked that fell outside of the norm. When hit with questions like that, Edwards would simply divert attention to another topic and when he didn't have enough to say, he'd tell some story to fill the time.

In the end, perhaps the debate wasn't a full win for the Bush/Cheney camp.....I'm not sure. The public has to judge that. On the core one on one debate between these two men, Cheney took Edwards to school. You could see his head spinning....or at least his hands shaking. Anyone would have had a rough time running up against that level of knowledge and experience.

BigJohn - Bremer is quoted as saying that this was his impression from being on the ground just after Hussein was ousted. The context of his comments was in relation to the looting and the lawlessness in those early days.....not in the context of the overall insurgence. Also, he said that he had asked for troops after that, but conceded that he was not as insistent as he could have been. Basically, he made a narrow statement that has been latched onto by the media as an indictment of the Administration as a whole, when it was merely his impression of a narrow point in time between the US arrival and the control enacted by both his team and the interim government.

As far as Rumsfeld's comments, he immediately followed by stating that he has consistently stated since 2002 that there were ties between Iraq and Al Quaida. Yes, he probably needs to clarify further on this one.

As far as scrambling goes on the Republican side, I don't see that. I see the left latching onto whatever minor soundbyte that they can find to give that appearance. To me, it seems like they are staying on task and getting the job done as best they can w/ the level of resistance they are seeing.

Mark - You may be correct in your analysis. I am not well-read on this topic. What I can tell you is that I don't lose sleep about cutting taxes on small and mid-size businesses. I work for a mid-size business and I am happy that Bush wants my company to have more money to spend on market expansion. If Kerry has his way, the government will suck more money from them, which in turn makes it harder for my department to get more headcount and equally hard for me to get a damn raise. No matter how he paints it, Kerry wants redistribution of wealth. The problem is that our economy doesn't work that way. The people that expand their companies to new markets, new products, and new arenas are the people that he is looking to penalize. The people that create innovation in this country, which in turn creates jobs and overall economic growth are the ones he wants to penalize. Yes, small businesses create jobs, but massive innovation, technology advances, and society-changing advances are products of all segments of the economy, including the dreaded "big business". Kerry doesn't get this....he sees the big companies as the enemy when they are the ones that are responsible for most of the great advances throughout our history.

There is one enemy in this ballgame and it's the government spend-hog that Kerry wants to run. Bush may be a bit out of control on his spending right now, but Kerry is the one openly advocating for increased government involvment/control, which in turn translates to increased spending, which in turn translates to increased taxes.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 04:38 PM
I thought it was probably a tie with some real zingers thrown in by Cheney. He didn't need a win. He only needed to stop the bleeding. Edward's said some really stupid things such as how "we have too many lawsuits in this country" - absurd coming from an ambulance chaser.

His bringing up of Cheney's lesbian daughter was uncalled and displays horrible character on the part of Edwards. Edwards almost came off as a used car salesman to me.

There wasn't much substance from either side in terms of what they would do for the country. They were too busy attacking each other. But man, bringing up the man's daughter was way out of line and totally classless. I'm pleased with Cheney's response to that.
Posted By: BigWill Re: Safire article - 10/06/04 04:38 PM
"So now Kerry is a traitor? That's a very large and well-greased slippery slope, my friend. What you're saying is that any public figure who speaks out against the war is aiding the enemy because it boosts their morale, correct?

So Kerry's choice is either support the President or aid the enemy?"

Not at all. Kerry's choice is to support the war or be against it. We all know his position has changed as the polls and his opponent have required. The position that has been crafted for him, trying to put all these contradictory statements into a stance that can make sense as something other than political posturing, is indefensible - as Cheney pointed out last night. Look for Kerry's Iraq position (the war is a mistake, but we'll do it better) to be completely destroyed in the next few days.

The first debate benefitted Kerry - most people will say he "won". After that debate even Fox News recognized that the President didn't do well and that Kerry looked and sounded good.
After last night's debate I quickly turned it to CNN - Oh! the spin! Cheney clearly destroyed Kerry/Edwards foreign policy position and their criticisms of the current administration. Cheney had Edwards so flustered that Edwards briefly dropped his Southern accent, blustered a bit and played his Halliburton card out of desperation (although it was clearly not the time to do so). Cheney annhilated Edwards in the foreign policy part of the debate, but CNN and their spin doctors were downplaying that as much as they could.

The domestic policy was a different story. Edwards was able to speak to populist themes there, on issues that always favor Democrats/liberals/progressives. Cheney did OK, but conservative views on stuff like health care, welfare, unemployment, etc... don't have the pop that, "Elect me and I'll tax the rich and give you everything for free!", does.
One point that Edwards skewered the Republicans on was the gay marriage thing. They're right that it was a calculated political move.
That's my take on it anyways.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 05:01 PM
Biff-it looks to me like Cheney and you have a different take on Edwards comments. Here's a direct quote:

"Ms. Ifill Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

Mr. Cheney Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much."

The right wing of the Republicans has chosen to make gay marriage an issue. Edwards didn't broach the subject of Cheney's daughter with any venom or judgement. Or did I miss something. I might have been watching the proceedings at Yankee Stadium.

I spoke this morning with an old friend who has been a conservative Repub for the 30 years that I've known him. His take on the debate was one of disappointment. He thought that Cheney had perhaps stopped the perceived "bleeding" since the 1st debate, but had failed to go for the Kerry/Edwards jugular. Direct quote-"if he (Cheney) was supposed to be the attack dog-he wimped out. With all of his experience he should have been able to not only hold Edwards at bay-he should have slaughtered him".

Maybe his heart trouble doesn't allow him to get too excited.

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 05:19 PM
Did you just call him Biff?

I agree...it didn't appear that he was attacking Cheney's daughter or his family. The problem is that there is an unspoken rule about not talking about an opponent's family/children. That's where he stepped in it. The issue is still out in the mainstream, but it still doesn't come off well to be bringing it up for personal gain. Cheney took it well and then proceeded to deflate the issue. However, I'm sure he didn't appreciate his daughter being brought up on national TV.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 05:21 PM
"His bringing up of Cheney's lesbian daughter was uncalled and displays horrible character on the part of Edwards. Edwards almost came off as a used car salesman to me.

There wasn't much substance from either side in terms of what they would do for the country. They were too busy attacking each other. But man, bringing up the man's daughter was way out of line and totally classless. I'm pleased with Cheney's response to that."

Riffman, I didn't see that as an attack by Edwards either. I do think that Cheney said A LOT about actual policy in other areas.

And Cheney also answered the question regarding Bremer's comments about troop levels, but he did it later in the debate.

Anybody else feel like Cheney was talking at a pretty high level - maybe even over the heads of most voters?
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 05:22 PM
Hope you didn't take offense Biffman. My fingers sometimes type faster than my brain works. Sorry.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 05:32 PM
"Anybody else feel like Cheney was talking at a pretty high level - maybe even over the heads of most voters?"

Absolutely. I was telling my wife exactly that last night. You really have to pay attention to what he is saying and have some level of education in both foreign and domestic affairs to keep up with him.....refreshing. The problem is that the majority of the sheep out there are herded not by knowledge, but by more simple appeals to selfishness and insecurity. That was my reason for saying that whether or not this was truly a win for Bush/Cheney is in the hands of the public.....unfortunately. On this topic, I find myself maintaining a grim outlook. I feel that our self-indulgence, our sloth, our apathy, and our laziness as a society has created a huge chasm between the true worthy electorate and the brainless chimps out there wiping their a$$es with their civic responsibilities.

Yes, Spiff...again telling you how I feel.
Posted By: Huffer Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 05:47 PM
TurboDog1,

I was reading your last post and I agree with your negative view of the voting public. Made me think of Starship Troopers where they had some sort of citizen class which had to be earned. Not saying that's my suggestion, just came to mind.

Ok, back to the politics!
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 06:12 PM
In reply to:

There is one enemy in this ballgame and it's the government spend-hog that Kerry wants to run. Bush may be a bit out of control on his spending right now, but Kerry is the one openly advocating for increased government involvment/control, which in turn translates to increased spending, which in turn translates to increased taxes.




Bush has been spending more and more and increasing the deficit. From what I heard from Edwards, he and Kerry want to reduce spending and only increase taxes for those that make over $200,000 and reduce taxes for middle income families, as well as cut the deficit in half. Doesn't sound very spend hoggish to me, but quite the opposite. Unless you just throw them under the "They're democrats so they must want to spend more" category.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 06:17 PM
Huffer - Great reference!!!....great brainless saturday night movie.

I don't know if the public would ever allow it, but I can guarantee that our elections would mean more if something of that nature were instituted. Right now, it's nothing but competing circus acts.....each pandering to the lowest commond denominator, rather than challenging society to engage in the process and take part in government. Instead, like two pitbulls in a ring, we tear at each other's jugulars and accept subjogation by the maestro used car salesman we call politicians.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 06:33 PM
C'mon....you truly believe it just because they say it? In their own words, all americans should have the same healthcare that congress enjoys. He says that he's going to reduce family premiums by $1K per year. Who exactly is going to foot the tab for that? Rolling back the tax cuts ain't gonna cover that. You have the Senator with the most liberal voting record in the US Senate stating that he wants to reduce spending and you believe that?....Why? His own record doesn't remotely support giving that benefit of the doubt.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 06:46 PM
No offense, George! ;-)

I can't believe anyone would even try to mitigate the fact that Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter solely for political gain. It was despicable. He will say anything.

Cheney's response was, as said before, to deflate the issue.



Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 07:27 PM
I just listened to a replay of the debate on the radio-it still doesn't seem apparent that Edward's bringing up Cheney's family was a very big deal. My impression of the debate after listening is that Cheney really came across much differently than he is portrayed. His low-key presentation didn't come across sounding cynical and condescending and he's certainly capable of doing that. Edwards had more to gain with undecided voters in this debate IMO, just because he is a relative unknown. He certainly didn't come across as scared on the radio.

I certainly agree that Kerry's voting record is pathetic-tax and spend. Don't forget-if he's elected he will have to deal with the House and Senate. Checks and balances will come into play. Listening to local radio and reading local papers the past few days leads me to believe that Bush (at this point in time) is in a little trouble. No good news from Iraq and more damning news about WMDs (or the lack thereof) is not reflecting well on Bush's rush to war in Iraq. Rumsfeld and Bremer's remarks lately have got to be causing George W. some major pain. If Kerry's able to run a smart campaign, attacking when appropriate, doing well in the next debate, etc. this election is going to be closer than I ever dreamt. Neither one of these candidates will have me rushing to the polls on November 2 anxious to vote for someone that I'm excited about.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 08:13 PM
"Bush has been spending more and more and increasing the deficit. From what I heard from Edwards, he and Kerry want to reduce spending and only increase taxes for those that make over $200,000 and reduce taxes for middle income families, as well as cut the deficit in half. Doesn't sound very spend hoggish to me, but quite the opposite. Unless you just throw them under the "They're democrats so they must want to spend more" category."

Kerry and Edwards have some pretty lavish spending ideas - from the extravagant health care promises to doubling the contributions toward the int'l AIDS epidemic to increasing spending in Iraq (training Iraqi troops outside of Iraq?!) and many more I can't remember. Rolling back the tax cuts for the top rich guys ain't enough to pay for all they propose.
The best way to increase gov't revenues is to grow the economy. Best way to do that is cut taxes and regulations. Everybody knows that, right?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/06/04 11:03 PM
Bush, remixed.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 12:12 AM
My internet provider's default start up page is run my MSNBC. I regularly check the latest news there before moving on to other things. Wanting to hear what the President of the United States had to say at an important speech in Pennsylvania today, I was stunned to find a complete lack of coverage. Well, almost complete lack of coverage. I clicked on the buried "headline" that claimed to cover the speech and found one paragraph in reference to the speech and 20 paragraphs of response by the Kerry campaign.
I haven't checked, but I'm guessing other mainstream media organizations have also tried to squelch this speech.

I found the text of it here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11390-2004Oct6.html

It's not a funny link. It's not spin. It is one of the most powerful and concise messages (the parts about Iraq, the war on terrorists, and foreign policy) I have ever read from an elected official.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 12:43 AM
The coverage I've encountered said Bush scrapped the speech he had oringally planned for today in favor of a speech carefully crafted to regain points he lost to Kerry during the debate. I say this before reading the text of the speech, which I am about to do.

Hmmm...
In reply to:

Ten million students will get record levels of grants and loans to help with college.


Could this be because college is now so damned expensive? And the same 10 million will have mounds of debt when they finish school.

Ok, BigWill, how is this any different than what he said during the debate, other than the fact that it was all written out for him beforehand?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 01:06 AM
PM.....That mp3 was brutal. It's like pouring lemon juice on an open wound. It's like nails on a chalk board. It's like a VERY bad hangover.

Good Job!!!!
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 01:09 AM
OK...what's up w/ this crap with having to register to see websites? It's starting to pi$$ me off! Can nothing ever be anonymous anymore?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 02:43 AM
Sorry, turbo, they didn't make me register.

pmb, I was a little pissed at what I saw as slanted media coverage (non-coverage of the speech and biased coverage of the VP debate) so I believe I may have exaggerated a little. It WAS NOT the Gettysburg Address, but it WAS concise, clear and focussed. There was definitely some stuff that was not said at the debate (but has been said here). He said the things that we all wished he had said at the debate, but was unable to stammer out, or was directed not to say, or was hesitant to say. Probably just practice for Friday's debate.
I'm guessing now that Kerry has publicly committed to a stance on the Iraq War, he will have to stand and defend it without further mutations. But you never know...


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 04:52 AM
I use bugmenot.com to get around registering. You can even download a plug-in for Internet Exlorer or FireFox so all you have to do it right-click the registration box and it will fill in the log-ins for you!

I can't live without it.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 11:33 AM
PM - That is a great site. Thanks.

I have to go with BigWill on this. That is a pretty damn good speech he gave. Let's hope that he can rally on Friday night and get that message out effectively.

If the media burried that speech, yet continued to cover Kerry's appearances, then that is definitely pathetic. There were plenty of good soundbytes in there worth quoting. However, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was no coverage.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 03:42 PM
Well I made it a point to check for coverage of that speech on the TV news outlets. Mostly it was not covered, and the best portions of it weren't covered at all. The "No WMDs in Iraq" news bulletin was more important apparently.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 04:19 PM
I've read the transcript-what makes this speech more newsworthy than any other campaign rhetoric. There's nothing new here-a couple pages of attacking Kerry and a couple more of Bush back patting. There's no new policy, no new detail, nothing new at all. On public radio here, the speech followed the lead story of no WMD's. I don't think it deserved any better coverage. If you want good GOP coverage tune in to Fox.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 04:47 PM
Wow! You are a partisan. Bush's speech was a detailed disection of Kerry's complicated position on Iraq and an affirmation of the administartion's position.
Why did it deserve coverage? Because Bush did not call him on it the night of the debate. The position the Kerry campaign cobbled together for him (an attempt to make sense of all his contradictory statements over the past few years - and gloss over the contradictions between the policy positions he currently purports to hold and his actual voting record for his entire career) was a surprise to us all, I think.
IMO, the statute of limitations on foreign policy discussions hasn't run out with the end of the last debate - despite efforts by the media and Kerry to turn the focus back to domestic issues and WMDs.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 05:03 PM
Regardless what my post portrayed I won't be voting for Kerry and I'm not trying to take a "partisan" positon. My point is if you follow the candidates, listen to the speeches, and have followed the issues (especiallly Iraq) closely, there was little of anything new in this speech.

Do you really think that Kerry's voting record over his tenure in the Senate will have much to do with how he would deal with Iraq if elected. He's going to go from Junior Senator of Massachusetts to Commander in Chief (during wartime). Would you have expected Bush to be "tough on terror" if you based your analyis on his National Guard service record or his tenure as Governor of Texas.

IMO the campaign allegations and/or promises by the 2 major candidates mean little-they both preach to the choir. This year the rhetoric is more important in that they need to appeal to the few truly undecided voters in the key battleground states. Minnesota is considered a battleground state, but in Bush's last appearance hear he was at the Xcel center which is a big arena. Unless you were invited you couldn't get near the place. Why does he only want to appear before his supporters? Because it's all orchestrated media events. Kerry I'm sure does the same thing.

I have a jounalistic background and find it annoying to hear all the allegations leveled at the supposed liberally and conservatively biased media. If I want a conservative bias I turn on Fox, liberal CBS, the only media outlet that comes close to nonpartisan is NPR or in my case Minnesota Public Radio and that tends to lean fairly strongly to the left.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 05:32 PM
Well, I re-read the speech and the last couple pages in this thread. I never said there was anything new in Bush's speech. I did say it was clear, concise and focussed. I did say that it was all the things we wished he had said the night of the debate but was unable or unwilling to say.

Here is the body of what I feel is a scathing and accurate indictment of Senator Kerry's position as stated during the Presidential debate:

"Last week in our debate, he once again came down firmly on every side of the Iraq war. He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat.

Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake but also called the liberation of Iraq a colossal error. He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn't be spending so much money over there.

He said he wants to hold a summit meeting so he can invite other countries to join what he calls the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

(APPLAUSE)

He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror.

(LAUGHTER)

You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face. My opponent's endless back and forth on Iraq is part of a larger misunderstanding. In the war on terror, Senator Kerry is proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous. Senator Kerry approaches the world with a September-the-10th mindset.

He declared in his convention speech that any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. That was the mindset of the 1990s, while al Qaeda was planning the attacks on America.

After September the 11th, our object in the war on terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond, but to prevent attacks by taking the fight to the enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

In our debate, Senator Kerry said that removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake because the threat was not imminent. The problem with this approach is obvious: If America waits until a threat is at our doorstep, it might be too late to save lives.

(APPLAUSE)

Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before they launch an attack on our country.

(APPLAUSE)

I refuse to stand by while dangers gather. In the world after September the 11th, the path to safety is the path of action. And I will continue to defend the people of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you all.

My opponent has also announced the Kerry doctrine, declaring that Americans actions in the war on terror must pass a global test.

Under this test, America would not be able to act quickly against threats because we're sitting around waiting for our grade from other nations and other leaders.

I have a different view. America will always work with allies for security and peace, but the president's job is not to pass a global test. The president's job is to protect the American people. Thank you all.

When my opponent first ran for Congress, he argued that American troops should be deployed only at the directive of the United Nations.

Now, he's changed his mind.

(LAUGHTER)

No, he has, in all fairness. But it is a window into his thinking.

Over the years, Senator Kerry has looked for every excuse to constrain America's action in the world. These days he praises America's broad coalition in the Gulf War, but in 1991 he criticized those coalition members as, quote, shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden. Sounds familiar.

At that time he voted against the war. If that coalition didn't pass his global test clearly nothing will."

Bush will get another chance to deliver this message to the people, whether the liberal media wants them to hear it or not, during Friday nights debate.

BTW, I majored in political science and I teach American Government so I reckon I have been following these events about as closely as anyone. Our differences you cannot chalk up to ignorance, friend, only perspective.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 05:52 PM
BigWill, Nice post. Kerry, like many in the populace, questions Bush's actions in Iraq. That IMO is legit-Saddam posed no "imminent threat" to the US. We went in ill-prepared and lacking the troop numbers to get the job done. That seems like a "colossal error" as does flying to an carrier ship and proclaiming victory. Granted hind sight is 20/20. We're in this Iraq mess for the long haul, Kerry or Bush. The liberation of Iraq from the terror of Saddam is something that needed to be done, but has it done anything to improve our Homeland Security. bin Laden continues to operate in some measure. I don't know if we would have got him if we would have stayed out of Iraq (at least for a while) and continued our focus on al Quaida, but it couldn't have hurt our chances. Kerry supported going into Afghanistan how could he not? The rest of the world supported the U.S. going into Afghanistan post 9/11. Bush squandered that support and the good will of the world directed to the U.S. after 9/11 by his rush to Iraq.

I appreciate your perspective and the responses of the more conservative posts in this forum. I take a lot of this home to my ever loving wife who sits on our state's Democratic party's central committee. After dinner conversation is often pretty interesting thanks to the views presented here.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 06:13 PM
One thing I noticed, especially after the VP deabte, is how much more imposing VP Cheney is than Pres Bush. You can almost see the leash he's holding -- and the collar is on the President.

Just my opinion at the moment. Take it or leave it.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 06:33 PM
Have you heard about the error on the Michigan absentee ballot? Look at the way the arrows line (or don't line) up. This is not a joke.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 07:19 PM
pmb, your analogy is distasteful, but I would agree that Bush utilizes Cheney's insight and expertise extensively - precisely why he was chosen for the job, supporters like to say. Should Kerry get elected, I suppose he could always use Edwards expertise to sue his doctor for malpractice.

"Kerry, like many in the populace, questions Bush's actions in Iraq. That IMO is legit-Saddam posed no "imminent threat" to the US. We went in ill-prepared and lacking the troop numbers to get the job done. That seems like a "colossal error" as does flying to an carrier ship and proclaiming victory. Granted hind sight is 20/20. We're in this Iraq mess for the long haul, Kerry or Bush. The liberation of Iraq from the terror of Saddam is something that needed to be done, but has it done anything to improve our Homeland Security. bin Laden continues to operate in some measure. I don't know if we would have got him if we would have stayed out of Iraq (at least for a while) and continued our focus on al Quaida, but it couldn't have hurt our chances."

Kerry has done more than question the actions of the US in Iraq - he has called it a mistake, an error and a diversion. Disregarding the message that sends to our troops and allies, not to mention our enemies, it seems inconceivable that he would favor the continuation and/or expansion of present Bush policies in Iraq.
Saddam was not about to attack us, nor did he have WMDs apparently, but at what point down the road would both of those circumstances have changed?
Bell rang, gotta go.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 07:33 PM
Did anyone notice that Kerry said we had the doctrine of preemption during the cold war? What was once a frightening doomsday idea from Bush/Cheney has now been accepted by the opposing candidates. Kerry even went so far as to rewrite history. No Kerry, our doctrine during the cold war was MAD - mutual assured destruction. He's as dumb as Bush but he can speak.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 07:52 PM

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 07:58 PM
Doctrine may have been a poor choice of words. It is true that our primary doctrine was Mutual Assured Destruction, but you can bet your donkey that we would have considered preemting an impending nuclear strike.

Kerry was simply stating that preemption is NOT a new policy. We've had it for a long time, we just didn't choose to USE it until recently.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 08:10 PM
In reply to:

but at what point down the road would both of those circumstances have changed?


Again, we come back to a point that requires wild speculation to justify acting now vs. later -- and VP Cheney is currently doing just that.

The facts are, Saddam was not an imminent threat, nor was he remotely close to becoming one. Cheney is using little tidbits of the recent report to infer that Saddam was holding out against the U.N. resolutions, while using the fuel for food program to buy off foreign countries, with the angle that these countries would eventually drop the sanctions, at which point he would resume production of WMDs.

Where's Occam's razor when you need it?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 08:18 PM
No time for the link, pmb, but would it have been wild speculation to predict the attacks of 9-11, or the Beslan school massacre?

"The facts are, Saddam was not an imminent threat, nor was he remotely close to becoming one."

That seems like wild speculation rather than facts. He had no compunction when it came to killing, including the massacre of innocent civilians. He had the ability to reinstitute his WMD programs. He had communicated with Al Qaeda over a 10 year period and he sponsored terrorists against Israel. Doesn't seem too far fetched that he would help terrorists attack America, if at all possible.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 09:16 PM
In reply to:

but would it have been wild speculation to predict the attacks of 9-11


Nope. In fact, the possibility of al Qaeda flying planes into buildings was acknowledged prior to the fact. We just didn't know when.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 09:17 PM
if it was as obvious as it is now, then surely Edwards and Kerry would have voted no for war authorization by the president. they didn't. they have done nothing to prove to me they are any smarter than Bush.

we had more than enough reason to do something about Al Qaeda and we did nothing

Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 09:54 PM
To go back a bit to a frequent discussion point.......After seeing this article on the Washington Times site, it boils my blood to think about this "broader coalition" crap that Kerry continues to spew. He backed the damn war, he knew that there was no chance for support from the UN main powers, and yet he continues to flap his damn gums about this issue solely to get into power. If we are lucky, the media might get off it's a$$es and pay attention to this story.....but I doubt it when it deflates one of Kerry's core positions on Iraq.

PM - Occam's razor doesn't apply here. General Definition:

In its simplest form, Occam's razor states that explanations should never multiply causes without necessity. When two explanations are offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable.

In the face of historical evidence, how can it be logical to assume that Hussein was of no thread to us, that he had no WMDs, that he had no intention of rebuilding his arsenal, and that he would in no way conspire with terrorists? Occam's says to take the simplist solution, but it doesn't say to disregard evidence and blindly accept the easiest solution. Hussein had gassed his own people w/ WMDs that the UN was fully aware of. We had confirmation that Al Quaida had previously had training camps in Iraq. We now have more information coming out about Iraq's interactions w/ the different UN powers, including the purchasing of arms and weapons components. I believe that we recently found evidence that Hussein had issued directives to support efforts against the US in Somalia (don't ask for a link...wouldn't be able to find it). In the face of all this, it's pretty naive to burry your head in the sand and claim that Hussein wasn't a threat.....Hell, your boy even thought he was a threat that needed to be dealt with quickly.....somewhere back there before he conveniently changed his mind to beat Dean.

As far as your reference to our knowledge of Al Quaida's plans to fly planes into buildings, you need to check your facts. That briefing that Moore latched onto as a symbol of the administration's negligence only mentioned the possibility of hijacking of planes and nothing about using them as weapons. In that context, the briefing discussed something that we had been dealing with for decades....not the acts that we saw on 9/11.

OK....I'm outta here.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 10:11 PM
US policy and doctrine has always reserved the right to first use (premptive) of nuclear weapons. This policy was a cornerstone of US war fighting doctrine in Europe where the spectre of Soviet tanks sweeping into Europe through the Fulda Pass was always a nightmare scenario for NATO planners.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/07/04 10:42 PM
Kerry: the flip-flopping gum-flapper.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/08/04 12:02 PM
PM - You didn't get any love on that one. I liked it.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/08/04 09:40 PM
Is Bush Wired?

This issue/speculation has been buzzing in the background for quite some time. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the possibility that President Bush wears an earpiece at many (if not all) of his public appearances, through which an off-screen person feeds him his lines.

If the allegations are true, how do you feel about it?

Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/08/04 10:12 PM
I saw that bulge too. I wondered briefly what it was. Maybe he's packing a gat?

I don't think it was an earpiece or he would have had some better retorts.

The text of that link is pretty silly, btw.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/08/04 10:42 PM
Silly, maybe, but it there are plenty of links and evidence on the site.

The gist of the theory is that Bush is fed facts and information to use in his responses, not complete line by line speeches. I'll be watching carefully during tonight's debate.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/08/04 11:21 PM
Spreading speculation blows smoke but illuminates nothing. I don't believe that Bush has an earpiece receiver to assist him in his debates or speeches. The reason I don't believe it has nothing to do with his intelligence or lack of same, but rather that no president would take the chance that someone would eavesdrop on the prompting and record it.

It's one thing to be a partisan democrat or republican, but another to spread groundless rumors about a sitting President.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/08/04 11:40 PM
In reply to:

no president would take the chance that someone would eavesdrop on the prompting and record it.


Oh, really? Well, there's possible evidence on the White House web site. Watch this press conference (The link is to the White House website.) About 13:32 into the press conference, while Bush is listing off names of captured enemies, he mispronounces a name, and then seems to be corrected via earpiece. Watch how he pauses while looking down to the right, as if listening intently, and then blurts out the correct pronunciation.

Strange stuff here. I'm not entirely convinced, myself, but it sure would explain why he often has stange pauses while he speaks.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/09/04 04:12 PM
Nobody's got anything to say about the debate? Bush did much better. It was as if someone lit a fire under him. He was a little bit too defensive, though. Kerry's performance was similar to last time. I'd say this debate didn't have as clear a winner as last time, but I'd still put Kerry on top.

Neither of them really answered the the questions specifically though.

And is it just me, or did the audience look bored out of their minds??
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/09/04 05:50 PM
I think this debate was won by the candidate with whom you most agree. I thought Bush did very well in defending himself and reminding voters of Kerry's long record vs his current tough talk.

It occurred to me after the debate, listening to the analysts and spin meisters talk out whether Bush was angry this time around, how absurd this is - not that voters would decide who to vote for based on the expression on the candidate's face as his opponent is speaking (more stupid than absurd) - but absurd in that we should expect Bush to NOT get mad when Kerry says the Iraq war is a mistake.
I know that if I were President and sent over a thousand of my soldiers off to die, and my opponent said I threw their lives away, I would get pissed. Who wouldn't? I would get even more pissed to hear him say that he would continue the war - a war that he thinks is a mistake and a waste of American lives and money. WTF?!
Kerry's position on the Iraq war is absurd. It is also insulting and offensive to the voters and the democratic process. He embodies precisely what is wrong with electoral politics in this country.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/09/04 08:28 PM
BigWill, you've apparently been listening to Bush's spin-meisters as you're repeating their lines verbatim.

If you're giving Bush credit for making a great speech the other day and saying what he should have said in the first debate, you should also give Kerry credit for speaking his position clearly. Kerry is saying the war itself was not a mistake. People didn't throw their lives away for nothing. Kerry is saying the way it has been managed since Baghdad fell is horrible. And it's not just Kerry who's saying it. It's abundantly obvious to people in his own administration, as well.

Kerry's position is only insulting to the voters who support Bush. Bush's position is insulting to the voters who support Kerry, and the majority of the planet as well.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/09/04 11:24 PM
I thought both candidates did very well. Kerry is undeniably eloquent. Bush managed not to tie his tongue into a half-hitch.

I particularly like how Kerry said the war was not a mistake, but rather we were mistaken to rush into war without our traditional allies and new friends like Russia. Does anyone think that France and Russia would have gone to war with us? Does anyone think Germany would have backed us up in Iraq had we waited? France and Germany dominate EU and essentially set its foreign policy. We would never have received assistance from the EU or NATO. France and Germany were bent on delaying us until summer when our troops would have sauteed on ships and had their morale massaged by statements from Chirac, Schroeder and Saddam Hussein. France and Russia were on the UN 'Oil for Palaces and French and Russion Weapons' gravy train. France and Russia would never have supported US incursion and would NEVER have joined us.

Kerry intimates that we should have put together an alliance of Arab states as we had in Gulf War I, but of course, that would be impossible, Saudi Arabia would not even let our planes use the bases we built there, because of pressure from their fundamentalist base, base in Arabic is Al Qaeda. The Arab League won't even acknowledge the Arab genocide of black Christians and Muslims in Darfur, does Kerry seriously think the Arab League would have backed us? What Kerry is doing is taking credit for a pro war position, a strong national security position, and criticizing Bush for not meeting impossible conditions before going to war. Kerry agrees with the war but has imposed contingencies which would have made war impossible. That's talking out of both sides of his mouth, and I think that's one of the qualities which make folk a bit leary of Kerry.

Now, Bush can't put two words together in an orderly fashion, that's clear, but we don't expect a lot of palaver from a cowboy who sees the world in black and white. Now here's a situation which I think is best analysed in terms of 'black and white.' Kerry is lost in the nuances, paralyzed by nuances. In a time of peace I'm sure I would have voted for him. I don't believe he is war time presidential material. I think there are many democrats who will vote for Bush in 2004.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 03:19 AM
pmb, I had originally written a few sentences that did sound like stuff from the spinners, but I took them out.

Kerry's position is incredibly insulting and offensive to voters and the democratic process in the ways I described above, but also in that he SUPPORTED the war against Saddam this time. There was no intelligence that I know of, pre-dating the war, that said Saddam did not have WMD of some sort. Everybody thought they were there, including Kerry.

For Kerry to say the war is a mistake and yet still wish to prosecute it is like a football coach telling his team at half time, "We shouldn't have scheduled these guys. We have no chance - it's a complete disaster. It was a mistake and we shouldn't even be here. But it isn't my fault, I was only an assistant last year. Now let's go out and win this one under my brilliant leadership, eh?"
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 04:01 AM
You know....I have truly enjoyed this thread until recently. As of late, I have come to understand something: No matter what we discuss, no matter what evidence is presented, no matter what is said in the media....there is nothing that is going to change the minds of those who will vote for Kerry based solely upon their hatred for Bush.

PM - I hate to single you out, but you are probably the most outspoken Kerry supporter here. You have not wavered in that support in least. What troubles me is the fact that you maintain that position regardless of what you see or here here from us or the media. When I posted that link w/ Kerry's statements about Iraq....or that link w/ Kerry's flip-flops....my hope was that I could at least get you to admit Kerry's shortcomings. You may have done it, but I don't distinctly remember you doing so, which troubles me deeply. I don't expect you to vote for Bush if you are a Bush-hater. However, my hope was that you might finally admit that Kerry is an opportunist politician that forms his beliefs on what is beneficial to him at the moment. If you made that admission to us and then said you still were going to vote for him, I could respect that (to some extent). However, I cannot fathom how you can still continue to sing the praises of this man and denounce all statements against him as partisan.....especially in the face of the vast evidence to the contrary.

Now that I've beat up on PM a bit, I'll admit that I'm getting a bit discouraged about this whole election, because I am beginning to think that the problem that I describe above is widespread. I've been outspoken about my belief that the general public can be summarized as a bunch of selfish sheep being led around by the candidates offering them entitlements and promises to relinquish them of their responsibilites to contribute to society. However, in the back of my mind, I had held out hope that even the brainless drones would have enough sense to smell what kind of crap Kerry has been dishing out to them. As of late, I am beginning to lose faith in even that.

In the end, I continue to get a tinge of nausea when I think about the entire system as a whole. I used to say that we'd never be able to fix it because it was so screwed up. At this juncture, I still believe that it's beyond help. But, I'm now beginning to think that it's beyond repair either because the American public is too ignorant to actually understand the situation or it's just too apathetic and unmotivated to give a damn. It's with that thought that I wonder why I bother to try and fight this fight.

OK...it's late, I've had enough beer, and I'm tired. Good Night.

Posted By: bridgman Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 04:35 AM
>>But, I'm now beginning to think that it's beyond repair either because the American public is too ignorant to actually understand the situation or it's just too apathetic and unmotivated to give a damn. It's with that thought that I wonder why I bother to try and fight this fight.

If it makes you feel any better, try to think of it as incurable optimism rather than ignorance and apathy.

We do have the same problem up here in Canada, although the sides are a bit easier to pigeonhole. Heartless rednecks on one side and arrogant, lying scoundrels on the other. Neither characterization is totally true (we do get the occasional exception on both sides) but there is enough truth there to take to the polls.

We seem to have a chronic preference for the arrogant, lying scoundrels no matter how many times I vote for the rednecks. It's not just a question of intelligence, energy or even education -- the question is whether you believe that "being nice" is enough to get by in the real world.

Inside our protected little countries (well, big honkin' countries) being nice will go a long way. The further you get from home, the more you need to project the image that you are willing to OVER-REACT if necessary to protect yourselves. It helps a lot if you don't over-react on a regular basis, but you HAVE to show strength.

The problem we always seem to have is that very few presidents (or PMs) seem to be able to find the right balance of strength and insight. If I have to choose, I have to hold my nose and go with someone willing to take and hold a strong position if required (ie Bush).

Having said that, there are a few things Bush desperately needs to fix.

1. The "bringing peace to Iraq" thing isn't working, and part of the problem seems to be that the administration seems to be having a tough time deciding if there is still a war going on. Hey, wake up and smell the Anfo guys. Build a "Fort Bush" out in the desert if you have to. Put all the aid and support organizions inside a fence with security checks in AND out. Nobody gets kidnapped if the bad guys have to pass a post full of Marines to get back to their hideout. Make sure the insurgents can only kill Iraqis -- either they will stop right quick or it will become clear that they are no friends of Iraq and their support will fade.

2. Drug pricing. Importing drugs from Canada is not the answer, but there is no reason why the US can't start to play a bit tough with "big pharma" and start to get some of the volume pricing that Canada enjoys. Bush has to make it clear to the drug companies that they have to throw his administration a bone BEFORE the election, or Kerry is going to win too many supporters on the drug pricing issue.

I can live with the left wing guys, at least the honest ones, but Kerry strikes me as the worst of both worlds -- a left-leaning idealogue willing to wrap himself in the flag and lie about being a tough guy just long enough to get elected. Then watch what happens... you are NOT going to like it.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 05:56 AM
TurboDog,

Your honestly and tactfully delivered criticism is duly noted and appreciated. One reason I stand alone here as a Kerry suppporter is that others have either been scared off or don't have enough control over their emotions to participate.

But you're right, I don't often acknowledge Kerry's shortcomings. But make no mistake (heh), my desire to see Bush out of the White House has not completely blinded me to the faults of his most likely replacement. I've acknowledged Kerry's "political whorish" tendencies elsewhere, so I'll do it here, as well. The thing is, every politician with a desire for upward mobility will change his mind at opportune moments. Click hereto see a nicely done photo-journal of Bush's flip-flops, for example.

This election, like most, is a choice between two less-than-ideal candidates. What sane person would want their entire lives trotted out on parade for all to see? That's what running for President is like. You have to be a little crazy to want to go through that.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 01:26 PM
Crazy or powerhungry...

BTW, turbo, you made a comment about not expecting much palaver from a cowboy (Bush). Are you currently reading Stephen King's Dark Tower series by any change. The choice of words just reminded me of the series (I'm currently reading the last one).
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 03:02 PM
Bridgman - Thanks for letting me know that we're not alone in this.

Zarak - I think that quote was from Bridgman. However, I have read the first three books of the Gunslinger series....great books....and the others are on deck to be read. The problem I encountered is that it took so long in between reading the first three and the fourth one that I found that I couldn't just jump back into the series and remember all of the details. Therefore, it's been on my to-do list to restart the series and read it through to the end.

PM - I'm glad you didn't get to ticked off at me for singling you out....I was uneasy about posting those statements. However, you are a level-headed guy who took my statements in context and that's appreciated. I wish all Dems were that way.

The link that you posted is interesting. First of all, I think that many of these are quite obviously stretches by those trying to deflect criticism of Kerry.

Take for example the quote concerning the link between Al Quaida and Iraq. If you read closely, the comments aren't contradictory. He originally said that both are equally part of the war on terror. He then said that the latter did not have anything to do w/ 9/11. They have never stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

The same goes w/ the comments about WMDs. The first comment states that they had found weapons, which they did. The second is an admittance that they did not find the STOCKPILES that they ALL thought they would. There is no contradiction in those two statements.

You could probably address each of these in a similar fashion. The core problem is that these references do not represent what is the focus of the Kerry criticism. The attacks on Kerry are based upon direct contradictions between words that come out of his mouth at different times of opportunity. They are based upon the consistent lack of core belief structure that Kerry displays when he changes his positions as he does.

Let's try to put this in another light. Let's take the steel industry tarrif issue for example. I don't know a lot about the issue, but it's a good comparison to work with. Let's assume that this was indeed a change of position (again, don't know context and history around that decision). If that's the case, then you might have a case for a flip-flop. Now, if you want to understand the difference between that and what Kerry does, you would have to fudge the history a bit. First of all, you'd have to have Bush get up on a stage and tout his actions in imposing those tariffs as the right thing to do for America. Then, when the issue came back up at a later date, he would have to publicly say that anyone would be foolish and un-American to vote to roll back those tariffs. Then, once he did vote to roll back those tariffs, he would have to state that he voted for them before he voted against them and that the original tariffs were a bad decision....not on his part, though. When asked about his contradictory language, he'd brush off the questions by saying that he "mispoke" rather than address the contradiction in his own voting.

We can go round and round about flip-flops, but it's tiresome. I can only ask that you read and listen to Kerry's actual words. His problem is that his contradictions go beyond changes in votes....into changes in beliefs...changes in core beliefs. Political give and take always leads to changes in votes. Opportunistic changes in core beliefs is nastier animal entirely.

On a different note, that's an interesting quote at the end of the website. I did a little research into it, because it fit so well with what I've been feeling about where we are in society. What I found is that the quote is most often used by Republicans to combat the Democratic trend towards government dependance and socialism. This makes me wonder whether or not the creator of that site didn't really read and understand the quote. Beyond that, I also found that the authenticity of the quote is in question. There are tons of sites and blogs that quote it, but the origin is very much in question. When people have tried to research the author's books, they cannot locate the particular book or even the quote in the author's real books. At a minimum, it appears that this displays both the power and danger of the Internet as a historical source.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 04:32 PM
I enjoy this forum even though I suspect we are all just pissin' in the wind. The newspaper only publishes one letter every 30 days from any particular reader and they always edit out the best parts so this is a much better place to vent.

Anyway, nobody has anything positive to say about Kerry and his record after he returned from Vietnam. He's not a strong candidate for President. He's the anti-Bush candidate with no accomplishments of his own.

But look at who the Democrats had out there: Edwards, a slick freshmen Senator too short on experience to be a real viable candidate; Sharpton, uh... no way; Clark, anti-war ex-general also completely lacking in political experience (and a little psycho maybe); Dean, who was also a little psycho, but more credible than Kerry; the black lady (I forget her name), who was completely un-electable, but probably the most impressive, capable and sincere of the bunch; Kucinich, short, unelectable, humorless, psycho commie.

Where are the real candidates? Where's the big names? The capable and respected Democratic governors?

They didn't want to run because beating an incumbent war time President has no precedent, and attacking Bush on the Iraq war is un-American and political dynamite. Kerry will likely weasle out of that too somehow.

The real candidates are waiting for 2008, but will likely be facing a very strong candidate in John McCain.
Posted By: bridgman Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 04:37 PM
>>Anyway, nobody has anything positive to say about Kerry and his record after he returned from Vietnam. He's not a strong candidate for President. He's the anti-Bush candidate with no accomplishments of his own.

Agreed, but what happens if he becomes President ? My big fear is that one of the forces countering Canada's tendency to the "worst of the left" has been the relatively right-leaning US leadership, so a "vaguely Utopian" Kerry in power could potentially be disastrous for Canada as well as the US.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 05:29 PM
You have a point there. I have it on good authority that the first thing Kerry will do when he gets into office is have all the GPS satellites reprogrammed so that all missiles aimed at the USA will actually land somewhere in Canada.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 06:38 PM
"palaver from a cowboy" was by bon mot.
Posted By: bridgman Re: OT: Politics - 10/10/04 06:57 PM
>>I have it on good authority that the first thing Kerry will do when he gets into office is have all the GPS satellites reprogrammed so that all missiles aimed at the USA will actually land somewhere in Canada.

Yeah, this is why a lot of people up here have doubts about participating in "the US missile defence strategy"
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 12:43 AM
Nice input, bridgman.

pmbuko, I thought for sure that you could find some nice things to say about Kerry (other than his demeanor, tone and posture during the debates, and his new-found ability to appear "presidential").
I've tuned in to a lot of the opposition coverage and, substantively, it is all anti-Bush - not pro-Kerry. Whenever an analyst or regular joe is asked a probing question about Kerry it immediately turns into a slam on Bush. There must be something the guy has done that would uniquely qualify him for the highest office in the land, right?
Seriously, the guy must have something on his resume other than sitting in the Senate for 20 years.
Where's jorge016 with the official party line?
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 02:17 AM
I'm just swooping in quickly to give an interesting link about that Duelfer report that was forwarded to me. It looks like the someone might be trying to give the overall perspective versus the "single frame" that they want us to swallow.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 12:34 PM
Big Will, Can't give you much party line. The only thing I see that uniquely qualifies Kerry is that the Democratic Party is so pathetic they couldn't come up with anyone else. Look at how hard Kerry tried to enlist John McCain as his running mate and then signs on a freshman Senator. It's not just a problem for the Dems on the national level. Here in Minnesota our version of the Dems (Democratic Farm Labor party) is in amazing disarray. They tend to nominate their candidates based on tenure not ideology or electability. But then what qualified Bush in 2000-weak Governor of Texas or lineage.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 05:40 PM
In reply to:

There must be something the guy has done that would uniquely qualify him for the highest office in the land, right?


If only you could hold the same mirror up before GWB. If anything, for those who support him today, President Bush is a shining example of past experience NOT limiting future performance.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 06:06 PM
I reckon it is a big jump from governor to President, even from governor of a big state like Texas. I've always heard that folks in Texas were pretty pleased with him as governor and that he did well at bringing the Democrats and Republicans together.
Regardless, being governor is better preparation for the Presidency than being a Senator. I heard someone on TV say that being a Senator is being only 1/100th of half a decision. Being governor forces the candidate to make tough, visible decisions.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 06:14 PM
How will history reflect on our modern Presidents, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2? All came in with varying levels of experience/qualifications. Depending on what you use to determine a "successful" presidency-who among this group do you consider successful? What were the qualifications coming into office of that President(s) that you think history will reflect well on. I'm just curious, but do high qualifications coming into office highly correlate with a successful presidential term?
Posted By: md55 Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 06:46 PM
JFK, LBJ, Nixon were congressmen and senators; LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Bush I were vice presidents as well as congressmen: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II were governors. I doesn’t seem to me that you can generalize about whether Senate or Governor’s experience is better. One job entails more executive experience the other more national and international. It seems to me to depend more on the man and the particular experience than one particular job over the other.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 07:20 PM
That link definitely deserves discussion. The big picture re Saddam is something that is NOT being discussed by the media. Here are the key findings of the report.

The findings definitely support the viewpoint of the articel linked by TurboDog. Saddam was not a direct threat at the time he was deposed, but he had many systems, illicit deals, and agreements in place to make it easy for him to resume development of WMDs once sactions were lifted.

With this perspective, it is even more clear the Saddam needed to be removed from power. But one important question to ask is this: Would we have known Saddam's intentions as clearly as this report suggests now without needing to invade and remove him from power first? In other words, did we know nothing of the findings in this report until Saddam was removed? The answer is clearly no. We knew Saddam was making deals on the side with countries were supposed to be imposing sanctions on him. We knew the Oil-For-Food program was being corrupted.

The question of whether the War, as fought, was a good idea or not comes down to a question of timing. I believe the details we now know -- chiefly the fact that Saddam had no WMDs at the time we invaded -- would have come to light long before sanctions fell and the building of new WMDs resumed.

But we have the luxury of hindsight now. Many people believed Saddam had WMDs, and that's why we went in (or so we were led to believe). We can only hope that things improve to the point where the whole conflict can be seen to have been worth it.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 07:48 PM
I think Carter's presidency was catastrophic. Although I voted against Reagan, and thought his policy of increasing military spending to the point where the Soviet Union would break or go to war was reckless, his presidency will be remembered as a foreign policy triumph. He gambled and won! I think Bush I's presidency was forgettable, that Clinton gave us 8 great years and a couple of laughs (Monica was borderline, but had he done Linda Tripp I would have voted for impeachment and hanging for disgracing the First Penis); I think George II has been weak to poor on domestic policy, but towers over Kerry when it comes to foreign policy.

Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/11/04 08:03 PM
That was a very refreshing post, pmbuko.

So it's official - you're voting for Bush now?
Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: Politics - 10/12/04 01:11 AM
In reply to:

Have you heard about the error on the Michigan absentee ballot? Look at the way the arrows line (or don't line) up. This is not a joke.


Now that's hillarious. No need to worry about fixing it. The Republicans will be smart enough to know that you should just put the mark where the line should be.

It's all good...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/12/04 10:08 PM
Nope. Still not voting for Bush. Why? Because he's converted the US from Democracy to Psuedo-Fascism.

How can I say that? Well, how many of these 14 ways to identify fascism don't apply the USA, today?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/12/04 10:57 PM
Here's a slightly different 14 indicators of Fascism.

If you think fascism doesn't have a chance of taking root in our country, you are living in denial. Everybody needs to be worried, and vigilant.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/12/04 10:59 PM
Any reasonable analysis of those factors must lead to the conclusion that this country is not fascist nor is Bush or his followers fascist:

1. The first factor, "The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition" does not characterize our society. New age music, Art Bell, and discussions on the Sci Fi Channel of Stone Henge and Machu Pichu are not indicia of fascism. For a cult of tradition, go look at Osama bin Laden and the cult of IslamoFascists who want to restore the good old days of the Caliphates.

2. Neither the Republican Party, Bush nor the dominant ethos representing the broad part of the bell curve embrace a "traditionalism" which rejects "modernism." Our society is the embodiment of modernism. IslamoFascism, on the other hand, is the clear embodiment of the rejection of modernism, it is the center piece of their world view! No music, no science, burn the library of Alexandria because everything worth knowing is in the Q'ran!
In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. "For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason." Doesn't that characterize IslamoFascism where the penalty for conversion from Islam is death?

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake. This does not characterize US policy under Bush - Bush acted as a reaction to an attack on the US by non-governmental, but cultural forces. Action for action's sake is strapping explosives under your children's clothing and sending them off to blow up Jews in a pizza parlor, or attacking the symbols of US culture, the twin towers, Pentagon ... and murdering thousands of human beings, for what?!? For action's sake!

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. Our culture distinguishes everything! We debate morality, ethics, politics, science, art ... IslamoFascists hang 16 year old girls for demonstrating a "sharp tongue."

5. "Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition." You live in a pluralistic democratic society here in the US. Ask the blacks of Darfur, or the Coptic Christians of Egypt, or the Assyrian Christians of Iraq, which society is racist. Where are the venerable Jewish communities of Baghdad, Damascus, Alexandria? Jews lived there for 2500 years, and now Islamic nations are Judenrein, free of Jews. PMB, really, you have a nerve to suggest that our society is fascist and intolerant.

6. "Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups." PMB, we enjoy a vibrant and secure middle class, one which characterizes the broadest part of our society.

7. "To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside."

Doesn't this factor characterize normative beliefs of every Arab country? You can't seriously suggest this factor applies to the USA.

8. "The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance."

Again, this sense of envy, jealousy, paranoia, an irrational conspiratorial "understanding" of the real world order characterizes IslamoFascism, not any part of mainstream USA.

9. "For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle."

The dominant values of our nation endorse a love of life, music, home, family, cars, audio equipment, good food ... this is a love of life. If you want to consider the obvious obverse, think of the homicide bomber and the culture which names streets after mass murderers.

10. " Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak."

King Fahd, King Hussein, King Hassan, Strong Man Hosni Mubarek, Tyrant Saddam Hussein, Ba'athist Fuehrer Bashar al-Assad. Bush was elected, we have elections here PMB. You must have missed the memo.

I'm not going to analyse the rest of the factors because I'm out of time, but PMB, you really hate the US don't you?


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 04:38 AM
If by reasonable, you mean biased, then of course you can't see any fascist tendencies. You've got Islamo-fascists on the brain, and you cannot see anything excpet in comparison to it. You need to disconnect that part of your brain in order to critique the problems in your own country. Of course we're not as bad as the Middle East by any measure. That's not what this post concerns. Turn down your cultural contrast dial and you might see the fascist tendencies more clearly.

1. Tradition: Are you saying the religious right doesn't want to return the country to traditional values -- like America had in the 1950s? The religious right has a lot of pull with the current administration.

2. Rejection of Modernism: This administration has a bad relationship with science.

3. Action for action's sake: Too much thinking is a sign of weakness, in other words. Kerry is weak. Bush is strong for invading Iraq without a solid plan.

4. Making distinctions: You seem to have trouble making distinctions between Islamo-Fascists and other Muslims. "You're either with us, or you're against us." Labels aplenty. Black and white.

5. Diversity is bad: see the above quote. There is little room for difference of opinion in this administration. People who don't toe the line are fired.

6. Individual or social frustration: This administration fanned the flames of fear to gain support for its agenda.

7. Nationalism: Before 9/11, patriotism was not something many people felt to their cores. Now, patriotism is discussed, and questioned every day. People who question the administration's decisions are said to be aiding the enemy (plot from the inside), or even committing treason. And don't tell me xenophopia hasn't become a problem.

8. humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies: We are told that the enemy can hit at any time. Anywhere. But we are stronger and will hunt them all down, one by one. "Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak."

9. Life is lived for stuggle: It's hard work. It's hard work. "Life is permanent warfare." The dominant values of our nation/gov't also include: apathy towards the global consequences of our choices, our way or the highway.

10. Elitism: You are a perfect example of this. You refuse to even entertain the thought that your own culture is flawed, instead pointing out the flaws of others. Most of America does the same, I'm afraid.

11. Heroism: this point doesn't really apply as none of our military is eager to die.

12. The Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters: homophobia

13. selective populism: There is a distinct lack of equality of representation in the gov't, influenced heavily by economic background.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak: "Leave No Child Behind", "Healthy Forest Initiative"


And no, I don't hate the US. By saying so, you're exhibiting fascist tendencies.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 06:28 AM
Traditional values of the 1950s may be found in the media of the time, but your generation was conceived in the back seats of 1950'a Chevys, Fords, Hudsons, Packards, and for the lucky few, Nashes and Ramblers. Certainly, those were golden years economically, where in most cases a single bread winner could provide for their family, homes and cars were much more affordable - school shootings were pretty much unheard of, classrooms were orderly, children were respectful to adults ... I think those were more innocent times, in that we had not yet gone through the Vietnam experience nor had our faith in the truthfulness of our military and government yet been profoundly shaken. We struggled for civil rights and feared Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover. Things aren't black and white PMB, at least not here, in our dynamic, evolving society. You appear to take our lack of perfection as proof of our depravity. A pluralistic society tolerates the Christian right. You seem to think that the right and democracy are incompatible. Very strange, very intolerant.

If you think the US is fascistic, permit the respectful suggestion that you have no idea as to what fascism or totalitarianism mean. It's one thing to criticize our society, it's another to deprecate it. One is constructive, the other a wrecking.

Whether or not this administration has cut some funding from scientific research is irrelevant to the contention that it is "anti-modern." I certainly hope that we fix the Hubble and am in favor of much broader guidelines for stem cell research. The fact that the Bush administration may under fund some of my favorite projects does not make it "anti-modern," or "anti-science."

I think Kerry is effete with an undisclosed agenda which is not in the US's best interests. That does not equate to endorsement of action for action's sake.

I don't have any trouble distinguishing between Islamo-Fascists and other Muslims. I think we can say Islam has reached a higher level of culture and civilization when it can make the distinction, rejects Islamo-Fascism and fights against it. Until that day, the distinction is indistinct.

Yes, 9/11 changed our national perception of our place in the world and how we are seen by Islamo-Fascists and their toadies, like the French.

I won't deal with the rest of your points individually because it's my bed time. I will say that you might want to examine your own values, how honest you are in reconciling the troubling facts of the religious war being waged against the West, and your tolerance of the cultures which spawn, encourage, finance, and celebrate the successes of those who are fighting against us - those who murder us without distinction or pity or care. Those are the folks who are in a state of permanent war ... it just took a while for them to get here and get at us. If we react, you accuse us of encouraging a state of permanent war? Strange. Perhaps a bit more tolerance of our own society and a bit less of those who are fascists and murderers and who make war on us would make a bit more sense.

Anyway, g'night all.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 09:03 AM
In reply to:

If we react, you accuse us of encouraging a state of permanent war? Strange. Perhaps a bit more tolerance of our own society and a bit less of those who are fascists and murderers and who make war on us would make a bit more sense.


And how is a "war on terror" anything but a permanent state of war? When/if we're done in Iraq, we'll have to go somewhere else next. Iran? Syria? You can no better win a "war on terror" than a "war on drugs."

Also, criticism of one's own society does not equate to tolerance of murderers. Again, my intent in the fascist -- I should say pseudo-fascist since we are not yet that far along -- posts was to hold a mirror up to our own society and view it independently of others. The inability to view something in a critical light is called Vanity.

I realize I'm being harsh in my analysis, but quite frankly, I don't have enough time or space to do a thorough analysis of the bad AND the good. I'm trying to be concise -- and argumentative.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 12:08 PM
PM - First of all, I'm not sure I'd equate the War on Terror w/ the Ware on Drugs. Kerry stepped into that pile this week by making comments about getting back to a time when terrorism was a "nuisance" issue like the War on Drugs and Prostitution....a time (pre-9/11) when this issue didn't consume our lives. I'm sure the families of those sailors on the Kohl and those marines killed in the embassy bombings loved hearing that Kerry viewed terrorism in those days as a "nuissance". Perhaps if Clinton hadn't viewed terrorism as a simple nuissance and did something significant about it, we might not be as far down this road as we are. Back to my original point....Drugs and terrorism are not the same animal, because one is something that we have decided to fight, but don't have to....the other is something that we must address/fight and cannot turn a blind eye to. Simply burrying our heads back in the sand is not going to stop this one.

As far as you arguments about the US going down the road to facism, I have to agree w/ 2X6 in that it appears that you are stretching things a bit to paint this picture. Yes, there are things wrong w/ both society and this administration, but drawing parallels with facist states is a bit extreme.

Within your arguments, you make the point that the administration continues to "fan the flames" of fear and push it's agenda of war. Statements like these are exactly why we will never see eye to eye w/ liberals on these issues. What exactly is it going to take for you guys to recognize that we are truly at war. The devistation of 9/11 doesn't seem to have stayed fresh in your minds. Is it going to take a nuclear blast in one of our cities...the vaporizing of millions of our citizens...to make you guys realize that the war is on and there's nothing we can do to talk our way out of it. Our citizens should be scared....very scared. I listen to Kerry speak and I am scared.....scared because he doesn't get it either. Perhaps the war on terrorism isn't winnable in the traditional sense, but I sleep better knowing that our soldiers or CIA agents are doing whatever they can to put bullets in the heads of all those out there dreaming up these atrocities to be unleashed on the US people. I sleep better knowing that we have a President right now that gets this and will not abandon us because the political winds don't happen to be waving in support of his actions. I sleep well right now with a President that is as pissed off as I am about these parasites out there trying to end my child's life because she lives in a country that doesn't want to oppress her and perhaps stone her for talking back to her husband.

I really want to understand what's inside your head on this issue. I truly want to understand what level of disaster it will take for you to truly appreciate the war that we are in. I want to understand exactly how hard we have to be hit for you to finally say it's time to go out and kick everyone's a$$ that's involved in this....no matter how they are involved. Many of us are already there after 9/11. I'm curious what it's going to take for you to get there.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 01:55 PM
I understand feeling the need to kick everyone's ass that is involved, as you put it, but where does it end is the question.

Is it possible to completely rid the world of terrorism? I think not, but even if you think it is, what will the cost be? The concern is that we finish what is going on in Iraq, and then what. Do we go from country to country one by one that we believe is involved in terrorism and attack them? There seems to be no exit plan here, the goal is to just hunt down the terrorists. Sounds like a great goal at face value, but let's dig a little deeper and figure out some more details before we get stuck fighting in a new place as soon as we finish up in the existing one.

This is why the concern comes up as well about is this war being fought the right way. I don't think we can just topple 40 different governments and put in a democracy to try to get rid of terror in those places.

It all comes down to what's the plan and where does it end. I don't think we've gotten that far, we are just in get the terrorist mode at all costs.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 05:31 PM
pmbuko, I won't sugar coat it - your most recent posts were stupid and offensive. If you were just wanting to bump this thread... good job, but the US as a fascist state? Bush as the leader of a fascist mov't? Get real, we're not the bad guys.

If anything it's the "liberals" who will lead us to a totalitarian state. One where you can't fart without conducting an EIR, where you give all your earnings to the gov't for redistribution, where political correctness usurps the right to free speech.

The US is becoming more and more "liberal", not more and more "fascist".

The war on terrorists and the states that support them may last a long time or it may not. But if the American people are more willing to accept terrorist strikes at home than proactive military action abroad, then the war will be strictly defensive and will certainly be without end (at least an end that is acceptable for us).
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 06:24 PM
IMO if the country is becoming more and more liberal it's in responsive to the conservative leadership in the White House. These guys wants less gov't - unless it's flag burning and gay marriage, then we need constitutional amendments. Conservatives are proponents of balanced budgets-oops what's the deficit at now. What do you need to balance a budget, in my household, less spending more income. Less spending isn't going to happen we're at war, yet Bush still pushes for the big tax cut. (To his credit he hasn't said "Read My Lips!) Cheney still collects a stipend from Halliburton-but if you question that you're labeled unpatriotic. War profiteering is IMO unpatriotic. Turbo you throw up Bush's argument of "nukular threat" , don't you think it will take a pretty catastrophic intelligence breakdown for a domestic nuclear threat? A dirty bomb is a scary thing, but radioactivity is not all that easy to contain and hide.

I know I'm capable of playing devils advocate and spouting the democratic party line, but you can't just spout Bushisms and Cheneyisms constantly and maintain credibility. These guys have been wrong in the past -way wrong. Bush is the scariest leader we've ever had. A fundamentalist fighting fundamentalists - not a good thing.


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 06:46 PM
In reply to:

Bush is the scariest leader we've ever had



what scares me the most about him is his inability to admit or acknowledge a mistake. i dont know if its pride, or ignorance, or if he really thinks he is right ALL the time. but when you got approved information that plainly shows that you have made an error in judgement, and still dont fuss up to it, that to me is the most frightening.

and were not talking about 'putting the sour milk back in the fridge' kinda error.. we are talking BIG ones.. i think the president should show humility, vision, and acceptance of his own errors.. dubya has yet to do that. he even did it in last weeks debate.. when the lady asked, "name three mistakes your administration has made?" he just looked at her with the blank 'deer in the headlights' look, and couldnt name one.. SCARY!!!!!!!

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 06:49 PM
In reply to:

I sleep well right now with a President that is as pissed off as I am about these parasites out there trying to end my child's life because she lives in a country that doesn't want to oppress her and perhaps stone her for talking back to her husband.


You had me going until this point. I fundamentally disagree with you that this is the primary reason we were attacked -- and are being attacked.

So now that I've riled everyone up, I need to tell you that no, I don't believe there's a massive fascist conspiracy brewing in our country, but there are some pseudo-fascist tendencies. For example, whereas a fascist would say all the liberals should be rounded up and then take steps to make it happen, a pseudo-fascist jokes about it but wishes it were really true.

Yes, I picked extremes to illustrate my point, so I apologize if I ruffled your feathers. I DO love this country. Despite all I said, I still think it's the best place to live.

About where I'm coming from, I don't believe you can fight a "war on terror" effectively. I DO believe we have to take action against people/groups that mean to do us harm -- that they do is abundantly clear. Yes, military action is justified. I never said we shouldn't retaliate. I also believe that we need to do more than retaliate. We need to toss out the naive reasoning about WHY they hate us and get down to the root causes. This will take a lot of time, but I believe brains are ALWAYS better than braun in the long run. And isn't the long run really what this whole "war on terror" all about? Violence breeds violence. Iraq has made that abundantly clear.

In your eyes, I am a liberal simply because I disagree with the actions of the current administration. The thing is, I don't disagree with the goals of the administration, particularly in relation to terrorism. Of course it needs to be eliminated, in all its forms. What I disagree with is the methods of the administration.

Is that really so bad?
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 07:56 PM
New interesting link:
http://citypages.com/databank/25/1245/article12550.asp
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 09:26 PM
Interesting link, Jorge. And by a Minnesotan, no less.

I've got one to share as well. This is a letter from a Wall Street Journal reporter to her friends -- and was never meant for public eyes, but one of its recipients felt it needed to be shared.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=72659
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 09:41 PM
And another link:

Liberal! Liberal! Liberal!

I'll summarize: The article refutes most of the Republican campaign's attacks against Kerry.

And finally, the piece de resistance:

RNC-funded company Voters Outreach of America threw out THOUSANDS of democratic voter registrations.

More on this here.
Posted By: TurboDog1 OT: Politics - 10/13/04 09:44 PM
Zarak - I would not expect the US to attack any other countries in the near future. Diplomacy is at work as we speak.....it will be a bumpy road, but it's already in the works in both Iran and N.Korea. Your response is going to be that we didn't use diplomacy in Iraq, so why should we expect to see it elsewhere. My response has been covered numerous times in this thread. We attacked Iraq because we could. They were in direct violation of the UN sanctions, thhey had been playing cat and mouse w/ the UN/US for over 10 years, they had a documented inventory of weapons following the first war, and they had a documented and undisputed intent to gather more weapons. The green flag was there and there was no reason to believe that Iraq was ever going to fully abide by all of the sanctions. In the climate we were in, the President "took the shot". I don't want to get back into the argument about whether it was a good decision, etc. I'm just saying that the Iraq situation is completely different than both Iran and N.Korea.

Jorge - Less Government and Liberal cannot be used in the same sentance while maintaining credibility. The Democratic party is headed down the path of Socialism, so I wouldn't expect to see any cuts in spending. If they have their way, they will gut defense budgets like they did under Clinton. However, I will not hold my breath that they will give that money back to the people in the form of decreased spending and tax cuts. That money will be spent on whatever social program they can come up with. I actually had to chuckle when I read that statement.

As for nuclear threat, perhaps your right. So, let's trade 10 million people for maybe 100,000 w/ some kind of dirty bomb or chemical agent. It doesn't matter. If you are a terrorist trying to hurt the US, what do you do?....you try to top yourself. I sit and listen to liberals talk and I hear their statements about 'responding' & 'handling' incidents. You hear Kerry talk about pre-9/11 attacks as nuisances. I have to sit here perplexed that we're so damn complacent in this situation. It's like no one can fathom that they could and probably will do it again.....and the next time they might be even more effective. We have NO reason to beleive this and it's dangerous to do so.

BigJohn - C'mon....like he's really going to answer that question on national TV. Anything he said in response to that would have been tattood on him for good. It was a loaded question w/ good intent, but unrealistic in that context. Like he said, history will judge his mistakes. It's not the role of a sitting President in a wartime environment to expose himself like that.

PM - I am well aware that my statement about treatment of women isn't the only reason we are in this mess. I know that our past actions in the region have a part in this mess. However, my intent was to draw a line and show the differences in ideology. Liberals want to blame the US for this whole mess because all of the past crap that we were involved with...(Iraq/Iran, Afghanistan, etc). However, perhaps because it's not PC to say it, you'll never hear them admit that part of this war is a clash between cultures....a clash between traditional/fundamentalist ISLAM and the American culture. Perhaps this is because it's hard for us to fathom committing these types of atrocities unless it's in response to direct actions. It's hard to fathom that part of this hatred is because we live in a free society that has appeal to those that are oppressed. To do so would be to admit that we are dealing with a group of extremist sociopathic nut-jobs that can't be negotiated with. To do so would be to admit that this is truly a war...one which will be with us for some time....one which our children will probably be fighting. In that context, I'll repeat my statement that I don't lose sleep over the thought of terrorists taking the eternal dirt nap at the hand of one of our soldiers or CIA agents.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 09:51 PM
That's cool, pmb. I knew you were just trying to piss off all of us fascists.

bigjohn, I was watching CNN the other day (just to get myself all worked up). Lou Dobbs had 3 guests on and they were all discussing whether Bush should admit that the war in Iraq was a mistake or not. Not debating whether the war itself was a mistake - they want that to be assumed by the public I suppose - but whether Bush should say he made a mistake.
This is part of the "big lie" fallacy that we were talking about earlier. It is insulting to intelligent people and undermines the democratic process. To make good decisions voters need their news organizations to bring them facts and not opinions/propaganda. That the war was a mistake is highly, highly debateable - it certainly is not a fact. But if you guys keep repeating the mantra, "Bush needs to admit he made a mistake," then I guess we will all blindly assume that it was a mistake.

The real reason everybody wants Bush to say the war is a mistake, or at least convince voters that it was indeed a mistake, is to absolve Kerry of his absurd position that the war is a mistake but is still vital to our interests. I guess the first 1000 casualties under Bush were a mistake, but the next 1000 under Kerry would be justified?

CNN is a joke. They call the radical Islamic guys "conservatives"! HAHAHA They've been running "The Life and Times of John Kerry" every weekend. Their analysts use phrase like, "Kerry kicked his ass," in their commentary on the debates. What a sham!

jorge016, of course conservatives want smaller gov't. The founding fathers would likely all be appalled at this big nanny-style gov't we have.
Criticizing the President and undermining the nat'l war effort for personal political gain, or for furthering the interests of your political party and/or its agenda, is definitely un-patriotic. It doesn't matter how many Supreme Court justices will be retiring in the next four years. Kerry supports the war (I think ) and that should have been the end of it.
Income vs spending: economics is never cut and dried, but it seems to me that the best way to increase revenue is to grow the economy. You don't have to have a balanced budget every year, so long as when the economy is booming you settle those accounts. The problem is all the pork, waste and freebies the gov't increases spending on in times of wealth.
High tax rates and lavish social programs (like what we see in Germany now) stifle economic growth and, in the long run, decrease gov't revenues. Our recent recession was very short and the economy is growing again. In Germany they currently have negative growth.
BTW, rich folks in Germany - like the Schumacher bros. - take their incomes and leave. Both of those guys are now citizens of Monaco, I think. Kerry's European supporters apparently want him to drastically increase our top tax rates in order to stop the flow of individuals and businesses who currently seek the relative tax shelter of the US. Free money for us if you ask me.
Anybody heard of the current proposal in the UN, which Kofi Annan supports, that would put a global tax on our paychecks? That would be cool, eh?
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 09:54 PM
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sleep well right now with a President that is as pissed off as I am about these parasites out there trying to end my child's life because she lives in a country that doesn't want to oppress her and perhaps stone her for talking back to her husband.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PMB wrote:

You had me going until this point. I fundamentally disagree with you that this is the primary reason we were attacked -- and are being attacked.
_____________________________________

And here we have what I've been waiting for from PMB "this is the primary reason we were attacked -- and are being attacked." Right, PMB, it's our fault the IslamoFascists attacked us - we did something wrong, we offended them. What a crock, what a mentality!

Israel offers the PLA 97% of the land won by Israel in wars, the PLA not only rejects the Israeli peace offer, but blows up busses, Pizza parlors, Passover celebrations, stabs a pregnant woman and her 3 infant children, all to the Huzzahs of the 'Arab street.' The uma (panArabia) doesn't like US policy, so they murder THOUSANDS of Americans in the twin towers, Pentagon and the passengers on 3 airliners, or they blow up the USS Cole, or Khobar Towers, or shoot Leon Klinghoffer and throw his body and wheel chair over the side of the cruise ship they commandeered. Must have been something we did.

The subtext of PMB's argument starts with the IslamoFascists don't like our policy and that "is the primary reason we were attacked -- and are being attacked," and leads inelluctably to the proposition, "what can we do to make them happy so they won't attack us again." The Chirac government has bent all the way over and still French journalists are taken hostage and are threatened with beheading because some group of IslamoFascists doesn't like French policy regarding the ban on headscarves in public schools. PMB doesn't get it, we are dealing with a mentality which deems no hill so small that it's not worth murdering for.

PMB, you're wrong, we did NOTHING to cause the 20 Saudis and Egyptians to murder us in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania. If you see their point, why don't you come out and explain it to us?

Posted By: Michael_A Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 10:14 PM
In reply to:

It all comes down to what's the plan and where does it end. I don't think we've gotten that far, we are just in get the terrorist mode at all costs.




It ends when the terrorists realize that attacking the US would hurt them more than it hurts us.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 10:33 PM
Who is 'them', though? A country? A loose organization? An individual?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/13/04 11:55 PM
How about instituting a new version of MAD? "If there is another terrorist attack on US civilians we will bomb the Islamic holy site of ____________."
Would that be a deterrent to Muslim terrorists? Would it save innocent lives? It certainly would be roundly criticized, but if it works...?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 12:12 AM
Forget nukes. I say we breed 'em out!
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 01:09 AM
Yes, PMB, the much vaunted Arab "demographic weapon," we should enter into a contest and attempt to match the superb accomplishment of the uma which aspires to breed themselves into demographic supremacy but which has only succeeded in breeding themselves into increasing poverty and misery.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 01:24 AM
Prima noctes from Braveheart?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 05:38 AM
No nukes - just regular old bombs. Blast the sacred remains of Sheik Ali and his forty cats all over the desert.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 01:17 PM
The dreaded Democratic road to socialism-tired old rhetoric. Turbo, there's a basic tenet of our gov't, basic but brilliant, called checks and balances. It has worked pretty well since the days of the Founding Fathers and continues to work today. It keeps us from the extremes and keeps the neo-conservtives and ultra-liberals in check.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 04:15 PM
In reply to:

Zarak - I would not expect the US to attack any other countries in the near future. Diplomacy is at work as we speak.....it will be a bumpy road, but it's already in the works in both Iran and N.Korea. Your response is going to be that we didn't use diplomacy in Iraq, so why should we expect to see it elsewhere. My response has been covered numerous times in this thread. We attacked Iraq because we could. They were in direct violation of the UN sanctions, thhey had been playing cat and mouse w/ the UN/US for over 10 years, they had a documented inventory of weapons following the first war, and they had a documented and undisputed intent to gather more weapons. The green flag was there and there was no reason to believe that Iraq was ever going to fully abide by all of the sanctions. In the climate we were in, the President "took the shot". I don't want to get back into the argument about whether it was a good decision, etc. I'm just saying that the Iraq situation is completely different than both Iran and N.Korea.




This is a war on terror though, right? Not just Afghanastan and Iraq. We may be using diplomacy with these other countries, but the leaders aren't always where the terror originates from. There are terrorist groups in lots of different countries. How does the war with those terrorist groups proceed?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 04:26 PM
Doesn't sound like tired old rhetoric to me. "Tax the rich" seems to be the foundation of Kerry's economic plan.

I guess you guys were right about Edwards mentioning Cheney's daughter. Kerry did it again - with much less finesse than Edwards had used - and Kerry's campaign manager said Cheney's daughter was "fair game" afterwards!?!?!

Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 04:52 PM
In reply to:

Edwards mentioning Cheney's daughter. Kerry did it again



do you think that was wrong??

i think it is right on time. one of the bush's administrations main focusing points is family values, yet they take a stance on an issue that completely goes against the 'values' of cheneys daughter. she is family too, right?? i am sure she has no interest in being included as political fodder, but like it or not, she is part of this issue. the kerry campaign using her, is no different than the bush campaign saying things about teresa kerry, and her vast riches thru heinz.

just like the gay family member was an issue for newt gengrich a few years back, i think this will be too. both sides are taking off the gloves, so dont act like the kerry campaign is punching below the belt.. one good swing deserves another..

bigjohn
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 05:24 PM
Jorge - I have to agree w/ BigWill on this. You use the word rhetoric to belittle the assertion. Kerry outright intends to raise taxes on "the rich". His position on healthcare is that ALL americans should have access to government-funded healthcare....healthcare of the same standard that Congress enjoys. The funding for this massive proposal has to come from the tax-payer pocket. So, he is going to increase taxes on the rich to cover programs that benefit all those outside of the "rich" spectrum. Like Robin Hood, he is stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It sounds all good and well in never-never-land, but here in the real world that is socialism....distribution of wealth and ever-expanding government control. There's a reason we don't distribute wealth....because the damn system is based on the idea that each person has to contribute to society in order to obtain those riches. The spirit of innovation depends on that drive for success, which cannot be cultivated in a society where everything is given to people at the expense of those that understand capitalism.

Zarak - That's why we have to pound it into these regimes that the war on terror encompasses those that harbor terrorists. It forces them to make a decision on where they want to be in this conflict. I admit that it's not an easy proposition, but it's the best we can do in this situaiton. Perhaps the thought of a president that is not bluffing will help to knock some sense into them.

BigJohn - You are missing a major point. The wife of a candidate is different than a child of a candidate. Potential first ladies have an active role (varying degrees) in government. They have made a choice to put themselves in the spotlight. Children of candidates have not made that choice and will not have an active role in government. For this reason, it is political taboo to bring children of candidates into dialog. This is doubly so when your intention is to use them as a political pawn in your assault on your opponent. Both Kerry and Edwards swam w/ the catfish and the rest of the bottom-feeders when they pulled this stunt. They could have easily brought up the difference in position between Bush and Cheney without going down the road they did. It was completely in poor taste and is just another example of how Kerry will do WHATEVER it takes to get into power.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 05:26 PM
What do you guys think about this story concerning Democrat Tactics? Let's see how much coverage this gets in the mainstream media.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 05:40 PM
It gets about as much coverage as any allegations in the National Enquirer. About as much mainstream coverage as Matt Drudge deserves. Rumors, allegations, BS. Big question-is Drudge really gay and does it really matter?

Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 05:49 PM
bigjohn, you have become such a partisan that using the candidates' family memebers as political fodder is acceptable?

Assuming your view is not unusual, that explains why America suddenly thinks it is OK to undermine the efforts of our soldiers for political gain. I'm completely disgusted by the media and the American public this time around. The tactics have been ugly and the coverage biased, the public has been duped and we're hurting the well being of future generations of Americans. This has been the Jerry Springer Show of Presidential elections.

I have heard zero mention of Kerry's rich wife by Bush or Cheney, btw.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 06:32 PM


I thought Kerry looked bad when he brought up Cheney last night. The gloves are off from now to November. Lest we forget-Cheney is no choirboy-ask the Senator Leah. I suspect he'll be slinging with the rest of them.

Big Will who is undermining the efforts of our soldiers? The reasons for going to war are questioned, but the job our troops are doing hasn't been in question. (with the exception of Abu Ghraib). It seems that Bush continually deflects criticism directed at his war back to the troops. The troops had nothing to do with the decision to go to war-they do as the Commander in Chief orders.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 06:56 PM
AAARRGGHH!! i have been lassoed into this thread..

i havent heard bush mention teresa in the debates, but i have seen many clips from some campaign speeches, where he mentions her and her money, and its influence. i also heard bush mention how kerrys wife, "uses foreign labor to manufacture her product, while kerry advocates keeping jobs at home".. he was trying to make a dig at the supposed flip-flop of ideas.. wow, havent heard the term in a while.

and i DONT agree that wifes are allowed to be under the spotlight, but not other family? whoever said that is fooling themselves. after all, isnt it the daughters, on both sides, that have been campaigning for their fathers? dont they bring their families on stage after every debate and convention? wernt the daughters on the MTV awards trying to 'pull' voters. it IS about family, and it IS about using them to gain advantage. thats politics, like it or not... i aint making the rules, just calling it how i see it..

and bigwill, i dont see the media bias against troops that you are speaking of.. i see car bombs, and angry iraqi citizens, and tired soldiers that have no clear indication of when and how they are gonna complete their job. the americans are not seen as liberators by the common iraqi, but infultrators. they see no progress, and none of the promises that were made have been fulfilled. and i dont wanna hear, "yea, but we got rid of saddam.".. the reson you dont see the 'feel good' stories of the war, is because THERE AINT ANY... those troops are tired, and dirty, and hungry, and scared, and just wanna get home. at this point, they dont care about bush, or kerry, or saddam, or you, or me..... they care about themselves, and getting their a$$e$ back home alive.

how's that for biased?? and i couldnt agree with you more on the springer comment.. and it goes for both sides.. as much as it sucks, that is the society that we have molded ourselves into. reality this, and reality that... we want things quicker, better, cheaper, and with the most possible entertainment value..

thats why the rest of the world hates us. our singular motivating factor is, whats in it for me......

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 07:11 PM
Saying the war is a mistake, a grand diversion, and that we're going it alone is undermining the war effort. Period.
It makes it worse that Kerry claims to somehow be in favor of the war he condemns so roundly. I can't imagine what he would say about a war which he doesn't support. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, he'd make up stories about his fellow soldiers shooting civilians and raping women.
Issues of such critical national interest - such as war where real live Americans are fighting and dying - should not be used as tools in the hands of politicians for their own political gain. If he's against the war, he should say so, but don't undermine the effort when his alternative plan is essentially the same as the President's.
Why are we letting them get away with this stuff? Where is the heart of the American people? Where are the protests against these shennanigans?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 07:17 PM
Turbo,

Both are bad, but what's worse: lying about voter intimidation or discarding democratic voter registrations?
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 07:40 PM
Big Will- Without the war what does Bush have to campaign on-all that he can effectively communicate is Kerry-bashing. What should the public do that doesn't agree with his (and your apparent) stance on the war? At this point in the war what is Kerry suppose to say he'll do? He can't pull the troops out the day after he takes office.

Our troops are dying in Iraq in a war started under false pretense. This is not a war of the American people this is Bush's War pure and simple. This administration turned our troops from liberators to occupiers because of their miscalculating blunders in this conflict. God help us if the heart of the American people is with Bush/Cheney.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 08:06 PM
I've tried staying out of this debate for awhile but holding my tongue isn't easy.

What do you Pro-Iraq war types feel about this story that has gotten next to ZERO coverage from the "liberal", "anti-bush" media?

And this...

Let me guess the response. "Whatever it takes...", "The ends justify the means"... so other such *&%$!, right?


Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 08:33 PM
"Big Will- Without the war what does Bush have to campaign on?"

Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 09:36 PM
I would have to agree with 2x6 that the war against the terrorists is the dominant issue, and rightly so. Bush supporters would also cite NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug benefit as key pieces of legislation (though I'm not crazy about those programs ) that do not involve the war. IMO, what particularly qualifies Bush ahead of Kerry is, a) he has been President for 4 years already, b) he's done a great job in difficult times, and c) you know where he stands on the issues. (perfect example of Kerry double speak was his answer to the question on immigration last night - something in there for everyone to like!).

They've labeled Bush as a divider and not a uniter, but it seems to me that the dividing has been done by Bush-detractors, mainly the media, Hollywood types and key Democrats. Post 9-11 and post-Afghanistan his job approval ratings were sky high. What happened? What did Bush do to turn so much hatred upon himself?

You say "Iraq", lies about WMD, rush to war, blah, blah, blah. We've been talking about that stuff for 100 pages. Not fooling me. IMO, we have an honest man as President who is doing his very best for the country, who has not lied to the American people, and who has NOT made a mistake in toppling Saddam's regime and attempting to change the political climate of the Middle East. Why would I want to change leaders now? What message does that send to our enemies, "We are weak and conflicted. Do your worst and we'll bluster for a while but eventually turn on ourselves and quit."?

I asked you guys a while back to tell me something good about Kerry post-Vietnam, but nobody had anything to say. I ain't trying to be a smart-ass, but this guy could be President and I would like to have SOME reason to like him.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 09:50 PM
In reply to:

IMO, we have an honest man as President ... who has not lied to the American people...


You mean the President isn't a politician???

Honest men gain stature in society by hard work, not through favors. Honest men admit mistakes (e.g. "Yes, the data we based our decision to go to war on was incorrect." or "Yes, we overestimated our welcome in Iraq." or "Yes, we underestimated the number of troops we needed.") Honesty is the foundation of trust. Lack of trust is why half the country wants to give someone else a try as President.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 10:18 PM
PM - I need to know about the reference you are making about discarding registrations. If you are talking about the purging of Florida voters because of efforts to stop convicted felons from voting, you need to check your facts. What Moore didn't tell you is that the voting official were aware of the problems this purge list created, so they ignored it completely and allowed them to vote. Also, what he doesn't tell you is that them doing so actually allowed convicted felons to vote when they were not supposed to be able to vote. Who do you think they voted for that year?.....It's all distortion. If anything, that whole scandal probably helped Gore, not hurt him.

I am surprised that no one piped in on this issue of the Democrats misleading the voters purposely. I'm sure this has happened before, but these guys just got caught with their pants down.

Jorge - I think that your comments about Drudge are completely unfounded. Have you ever actually gone to his site? Everything there is comprised of links to valid sources. If the sources are not available yet, he will say "Developing" and then follow w/ a link once he has it. These are not his opinions he is posting. Also, you may want to bash him, but it's a bit arrogant considering how many stories are broken via his site. If memory serves, he was the first one to break the Clinton scandal. You may not like the fact that he is not your usual liberal-slanted source, but it's pretty much ignorant to compare him to the Enquirer.

Spiff - As far as the first story goes, I really don't make it a habit to get news via BLOGs, so I'm not going to comment on that. The second story really doesn't cause me any heartburn. These guys are terrorists that do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva convention. So, if the CIA wants to put the screws to them to obtain the information necessary to protect our soldiers, our country, and even the world, I say have at 'em. As a society, we have gotten so weak when it comes to "the spy game". In this environment, we need now more than ever to have the CIA operatives out there doing all those things that would turn our stomachs. If we hadn't handcuffed them and slashed their funding as much as we did in the past, we would have a hell of a lot better intelligence about the Middle East. You may not like what they do, but they are the ones best suited to uncover true intelligence in the type of world we are living in right now.

PM - Lack of trust has nothing to do w/ it. The Left has hated Bush from day one. The war is just the club they are using to beat him over the head. Remember, I used to be one of you guys and I remember that blind disgust for the "evil republicans" and the "rich". I remember latching onto whatever came my way as a reason to continue that hatred. Then, I saw the light. But, nothing has changed. This movement is the same old thing, but with a target that is just a bit more "hateable" than the average demon from the right.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 10:47 PM
OK...do you consider TIME magazine a blog?

TIME article (requires subscription)

For those without subscriptions...

How Much U.S. Help?
The Bush Administration takes heat for a CIA plan to influence Iraq's elections
By TIMOTHY J. BURGER; DOUGLAS WALLER


Oct. 4, 2004
President Bush and interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi insisted last week that Iraq would go ahead with elections scheduled for January, despite continuing violence. But U.S. officials tell TIME that the Bush team ran into trouble with another plan involving those elections — a secret "finding" written several months ago proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington. A source says the idea was to help such candidates — whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran — but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections. But lawmakers from both parties raised questions about the idea when it was sent to Capitol Hill. In particular, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi "came unglued" when she learned about what a source described as a plan for "the CIA to put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the elections." Pelosi had strong words with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in a phone call about the issue.
Rice spokesman Sean McCormack says, "I cannot in any way comment on classified matters, the existence or nonexistence of findings." But, McCormack says, "there have been and continue to be concerns about efforts by outsiders to influence the outcome of the Iraqi elections, including money flowing from Iran. This raises concerns about whether there will be a level playing field for the election. This situation has posed difficult dilemmas about what action, if any, the U.S. should take in response. In the final analysis, we have adopted a policy that we will not try to influence the outcome of the upcoming Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office." A senior U.S. official hinted that, under pressure from the Hill, the Administration scaled back its original plans. "This was a tough call. We went back and forth on it in the U.S. government. We consulted the Hill on this question ... Our embassy in Baghdad will run a number of overt programs to support the democratic electoral process," as the U.S. does elsewhere in the world.


The fact that they wanted to rig the elections is sick. I'm glad they've decided to "scale back" their plans, but it's just disgusting that they were going to do it at all. And don't say "well Iran was doing it"...that kind of rationale became old somewhere around the third grade.





Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 11:11 PM
"The fact that they wanted to rig the elections is sick. I'm glad they've decided to "scale back" their plans, but it's just disgusting that they were going to do it at all."

Now... are you talking about the CIA or ABC? That Time article reminds me a lot of the internal memo from the ABC news dep't to favor Kerry in their coverage. Now that is sick. Of course, CNN, CBS, and MSNBC have all been just as biased in their attempts to affect the election, so maybe that is just democracy in action.

Bush is an honest man.

I'm still waiting for some insight on Kerry's character, legislative achievements, whatever, anything other than, "He spoke well at the debates." Why should I like this guy who disavows his voting record, claims to not be a "liberal", but has the backing of every "liberal" in the country?
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 11:22 PM
Republicans have done a terrific job of turning the word "liberal" into a four-letter-word. For as long as I can remember they've used the word "liberal" as a negative word. It's gotten to the point where Dems run from the word in fear. Stupid. They need to embrace the word. Embrace it, and the republicans can't use it against you any more. Duh. I believe the main reason that the dem party is so weak is that they run away from the label "liberal". You don't see republicans running for the hills when they're called conservative do you?


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/14/04 11:29 PM
I completely agree.

Just saw this:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- US Vice President Dick Cheney expressed anger Thursday over Senator John Kerry after the Democratic presidential nominee mentioned Cheney's openly gay daughter during the final presidential debate Wednesday night.

"You saw a man who will do and say anything to get elected, andI am not just speaking as a father here, although I am a pretty angry father," Cheney told supporters at a rally in Fort Myers, Florida, without specifically talking about Kerry's remarks.

During his debate with President George W. Bush in Tempe, Arizona, Kerry was asked whether he believes homosexuality is a choice.

"We're all God's children," Kerry responded. "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

The vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, reacted angrily soon after the debate. "I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man," she said at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. "Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

Kerry issued a statement Thursday saying his remarks were meantto be positive. "I was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with this issue," he said.

Edwards's wife, Elizabeth Edwards, suggested in an interview with ABC Radio Thursday that Mrs. Cheney had overreacted to Kerry's remarks. "I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences," she said.

Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 12:01 AM
Not sure what that has to do with what I was saying, but since you mention it, I don't quite understand what the big deal is. As a gay man, I really don't see the issue. Everyone knows Cheney's daughter is gay, it's not like he was "outing" her. I'm not being partisan...I really don't see what the big deal was.

I did find it odd that Bush went on and on about how judges were determining what marriage should be rather then giving the people a voice. He suggested that his endorsement of a constitutional ammendment was done so that the people would have a voice. He failed to mention that the people spoke loudly and clearly that the DO NOT want an ammendment to the constitution on this issue. Strange.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 12:26 AM
Bush is not an honest man, and neither is the entire power structure behind (and above) him.

This is why I am voting for Kerry.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 02:02 AM
Spiff, I was agreeing with your assertion that liberal politicians ought to say, "Yes, I am a liberal," rather than try to say that a 20 year liberal voting record doesn't make one a liberal. It seems Kerry has suddenly chosen to not be liberal, to be tough on defense and security issues, and to completely (well almost) support the war in Iraq. Like choosing to suddenly not be gay, huh?

Edwards' reference to Cheney's daughter could have been construed as innocent, but Kerry's reference to the sexual orientation of an opponent's child confirmed that these were politically motivated. The first comment didn't generate the reaction they wanted so Kerry hit it again on national TV in a Presidential debate!

The Kerry campaign stood ready with their lines about how the Cheneys' must feel shame over their daughter's "sexual preference" to take such an innocent comment out of context. Please. Edwards' wife doesn't even know how to refer to the gay community in politically correct terms. Her use of the term "sexual preferences" implies CHOICE; Kerry's position is that sexual ORIENTATION is not a choice. The GLBT community specifically prefers use of the term "orientation".

Ms. Edwards needs to learn her correct terminology in order to toe the party line. I'm afraid she just offended us all again.

pmbuko, I no longer click your links. What did it say?
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 01:36 PM
Checkout this mp3 commercial

My point is this, after listening to that, how can someone call Bush a 'lyer' or that he 'betrayed' this country yet actually believe anything that Kerry says. Yes Kerry won the debates, from the standpoint of how he came across, but 90% of what he said during the debates was either a fabrication of truth or a flat out lie.

This man (Kerry) can not be trusted.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 03:59 PM
In reply to:

Of course, CNN, CBS, and MSNBC have all been just as biased in their attempts to affect the election



you forgot FOX...

i just receiver my newest issue of the 'american hunter' magazine from the NRA. it has this huge picture of kerry patting ted kennedy on the back and the caption reads, "you tax the guns, and i will tax the ammunition"..

you wanna talk about propaganda!!!! i have been getting this political crap from the NRA ever since the election process began. i believe in the NRA, but i dont believe EVERYTHING they want me to. the scare tactics they use to promote a paranoid mindset among gun owners is second to none. they got it down to a science.. it is actually down right comical to someone that can see thru the BS..

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 04:19 PM
The NRA is over the top much of the time, but you're not equating their propaganda to the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) bias in news organizations, are you?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 04:27 PM
Alright, pmb, I relented and clicked that link. Talk about labels! You're not really basing your vote on that woman's paranoia are you?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 04:39 PM
In reply to:

but you're not equating their propaganda to the subtle bias in news organizations



oh no, not at all..

one just made me think of the other.. trust me, the NRA is WAY more out there than the mainstream media ever thought about being. i read the articles in the NRA magazine, and i wonder if these people ever come down to reality. or if they actually believe half the stuff they say..

i mean, the NRA has basically put a halo on bush's head, and a flaming pitchfork in kerrys hand. heaven or hell.. take your pick, gun toting public of america!!!

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 05:26 PM
No, I'm not basing my vote on that site. But that site does bring together a lot of things I've been watching over the years. It's not all in her head, you know.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 05:48 PM
We haven't heard anything about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth fellows in a while now, so I thpught I'd bring them back up again -- of course, I have a great reason to do so now.

To set the stage a little bit, we have the SBVfT guys saying that Kerry's account of how he earned his Silver Star was a lie. Kerry says they were under a lot of fire from a numerically superior force. John O'Neill, author of "Unfit for Command," maintains in his book that the statement "is simply false. There was little or no fire."

So how do we get the truth? Well, ABC's Nightline actually went to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese that are still living in the area where the incident took place. If you don't care to read the link below, let me just say that Kerry's version of the story is solidly supported.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=166434

But one of the more interesting parts of the story is the fact that one of the Swift Boat Veterans had the same idea. He went to Vietnam with a cameraman to try to get to the truth as well. When the Vietnamese wouldn't give him the info he wanted, he left.

So basically, everything the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have said about Kerry's war record is a lie, and they knew it all along.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 06:25 PM
That's just sick.

The locals say it pretty much happened as Kerry described it, yet John O'Neil says that Kerry shot a sole wounded kid in the back. I'd sue the bas*^% for slander. That's just plain wrong.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 07:12 PM
Sorry to interrupt the "John Kerry, War Hero" love fest, but of far more importance today is the testimony he delivered to Congress when he returned - which cannot be disputed. His statements against his fellow soldiers, his lack of support for the 1991 Gulf War (which had almost uniform int'l support), his votes against major weapons systems, his plan to slash the intelligence budget after the first Trade Center bombings, and his recent undermining of the current war effort are far more relevant than whether he earned his medals or not.
That being said, I certainly admire all of our military vets who have put their lives on the line. Maybe if he gets elected I can just keep reminding myself that he is a vet.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: Politics - 10/15/04 08:05 PM
In the latest of politician's scare tactics (remember mediscare?), Kerry says a draft is likely under Bush.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 12:16 AM
Kinda like Cheney saying that if Kerry's elected the terrorists will attack again?

As for the weapons systems Kerry voted against, Cheney voted against many of the same programs.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 12:17 AM
Yeah...that's one of my favorites. Weapons programs that CHENEY recommended be scrapped. Too rich.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 12:28 AM
I'm just replying here so we can see 3 Kerry voters in a row.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 12:32 AM
In reply to:

his recent undermining of the current war effort


Do you think the war would be going better if no Americans criticized it?
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 12:23 PM
Might as well make it 4 in a row PM
Posted By: mwc Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 01:05 PM
Lets make it 5 in a row.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 02:50 PM
OK....I gotta throw a large wrench into this dialog. During one of the debates, Cheney made a reference to FactCheck.org (he actually said .com, but it's .org). I made a mental note to myself to go check out that site, but only now have done so.

This site has done one thing very well for me....it has clarfied how full of $hit BOTH candidates are. Everything we have been arguing about (both sides) is based upon mistruths, distortions, & half-truths. This site is not partisan, because it rips apart assertions from both sides. You can spend hours at the site and walk away completely swimming in the head.

I recommend that EVERYONE that has been following this election and this thread take some time to read throught the unending articles debunking assertions made by both sides. As a group, I think that we are much more aware of the issues that the average Joe "sheep" that we talk about. However, after reading this, I realize that we are all still subject to the same types of deceptions.....that we are all guilty of taking the word of politicians, which is a dangerous thing. You'd think that we would have learned better by now.

PS: Please do not respond for us to look at Snopes as Kerry suggested. That site may have some fact analysis, but it's a pathetic hack of a site that bombards w/ popups, which holds no serious credibility. Factcheck, on the other hand, is professionally done and is definitely non-partisan, as they beat up on both sides equally.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 04:26 PM
Sorry Turbo, I don't click on your links anymore...

j/k -- I was pulling a BigWill on you.

I second the FactCheck.org recommendation.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/16/04 05:12 PM
And now for something completely different.

I just read this fascinating, poigniant historical perspective on Islam and the West, written by Sadik J. Al-Azm, an emeritus professor of modern European philosophy at the University of Damascus.

Highly recommended reading if you want a little more understanding of culture in the Middle East. This is not an apologist piece of writing, and is not partisan in any way. I came away enlightened.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 05:16 PM
I've been reading that site all along. As much as I hate all the lying and half-truthing that's been going on on both sides, it's still Bush's policies that I don't like. It's what he's done that I don't like, not what he says he's done, and what he say's he's going to do.

I want a diplomat in office. I want someone that doesn't piss all over anyone that disagrees with him. I want someone that respects science. I want someone who is pro-choice. I want an attorny general who won't cover up the statue of lady justice. I want a president who when speaking to the nation or the world doesn't lean on the podium with a stupid grin on his face. I want supreme court justices who are not conservative right-wingers. I want an administration that respects and endorses gay rights...and finally I want a president who can pronounce the word nuclear.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 06:25 PM
"Do you think the war would be going better if no Americans criticized it?"

Uh... yeah.

My lefty start-up page featured this article about "Americans" sending photos and messages to Iraqis:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6260189/

Apparently it is important to inspire the enemy in their carbomb campaign against a fledgling democratic gov't. Good job guys, Kerry and Fonda are proud of your efforts.

2x6 mentioned Abraham Lincoln earlier. There are many paralells between our current situation and what Lincoln faced:
- A hugely unpopular war
- The purpose of the war was not always clear - were the Union boys fighting and dying to liberate slaves? That was not a popular justification in the North, despite the obvious nobility of that effort now. Many reasons for the war; not everyone understood them or agreed with them.
- Lincoln had tons of brutal critics in the media.
- Generals like McClellan, who had fallen out of favor with the President, turned on him - criticizing specific war strategies in public.
- Lincoln faced an extremely bitter re-election campaign during the war, narrowly defeating McClellan (whew, wasn't that fortuitous?).

One thing that wasn't similar was the number of casualties. 60,000 dead in 3 days at Gettysburg, 20,000+ in one day at Antietam, the inhumanity of Sherman's campaign against civilians in the South, 600,000 dead in the end...

If you were alive and voting in the North back then, is there any doubt you would have hated Lincoln, too?

I cannot imagine the burden that man carried on his conscience.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: Politics - 10/16/04 07:10 PM
I guess if Bush wins re-election he'd better not go to the theatre then.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 01:52 AM
Did he just go there? whoah.

It's not like he goes to the theater anyway. Bush and culture rarely interact.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 02:30 AM
Another thing that wasn't similar was the fact that it was a civil war, not an invasion of a different country. I don't understand how you can even compare the two.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 02:35 AM
Going off of spiff's rant, I want a president who cares about facts more than instincts.

Read this very sad and depressing NYTimes article called Without a Doubt.

Bush supporters can skip reading it and just reply with the usual liberal fingerpointing drivel.

Or read it and tell me what you really think. Seriously.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 04:31 AM
I'll read your link in a minute, but I think the comparison between the Iraq war and the US Civil War is plenty valid (not that it matters, but if one wanted to, one could argue that the CSA was in fact another country after the secession - my ancestors felt that way, I'm sure).
Hugely unpopular war; unpopular President; push for war not easily understood by the masses; the liberation of oppressed peoples; bitter re-election campaigns mid-war; hostile media; rivals and former subordinates criticizing tactics, strategy, etc... in public; both Presidents were widely lampooned because of their physical appearance (Lincoln was frequently referred to in simian terms); both Presidents were derided for their perceived lack of intelligence; "Bush's War" now, "Lincoln's War" then.

The casualties??? I remember the media geniuses and their retired military analysts (including Clark on CNN) predicting 10-20,000 US casualties prior to the Afghan War and like 20-50,000 prior to the Iraq War. Our military has performed unbelievably well and, historically speaking, casualties have been very light.

I can't believe that the Democrats' manufactured candidate - the political equivalent of Brittany Spears - is polling neck and neck with a real President by criticizing the motivation and prosecution of this war. When people buy Brittany's CDs I can laugh, but you guys buying into all this anti-American drivel has me sickened.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 04:32 AM
Hey spiff, you spelled "theater" wrong.

What did it say, pmb? I don't want to register with the NY Times.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 05:45 AM
No, I didn't.



Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 08:00 AM
BigWill, registering is free, and they send you nothing. Besides, you really should read that article - it's far too long to simply summarize.

And I myself am sickened by the constant accusations of being un-American or anti-American if one strongly disagrees with Bush and his policies and/or actions. Those accusations themselves are un-American.

Peter used this quote before, but here's a quote from a past president that I think hit's the nail right on the head:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - Theodore Roosevelt

Our President clearly is not interested in full disclosure of the facts regarding his actions, and in his speeches and the way his administration presents itself there is a strong running theme that criticism of the President is bad for the country, regardless of his actions. This is the attitude I find most anti-American.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 01:07 PM
Adam,

I agree w/ what you are saying. Our whole system is based upon that freedom to criticize our government...to protest...to say what you want (within reason) without fear of reprisal from the government that is being criticized.

My problem is with what Kerry is doing in particular. He is a sitting US Senator publically bashing the President's policies when his own positions are often contrary to what he's saying. At other times, he is criticising policies and offering alternative soltutions which are not significantly different from those of Bush. He criticises the way that Bush executed the war when he is well aware that his litmus test for action was never going to be satisfied. He has the nerve to call the sitting president a liar during wartime when he knows very well that the President acted on what he considered to be good information at the time. He uses inflammatory words like "catastrophic failure" during wartime when he is fully aware that the war is being executed with an unheard of precision and effectiveness with a well below-average loss of life.

Yes, I'm fully aware that many do not agree with this war. The problem is that the world is listening to Kerry's remarks and he is acting without regard for the effect on our troops and our position in the world. Rather than support the war as Kerry claims to and simply clarify his differences in positions, he prances around and fires off inflammatory and devisive statements aimed solely at damaging the President's standing both here and abroad. Rather than focus on why John Kerry should be Commander and Chief, he's focusing on amplifying a tough time that we are having over there...on intensifying the fears that people have....on the lack of will that is rampant in society today. He is an opportunist in the purest sense and he continues to display that there is no bounds to what he'll do to obtain power. This is a time of war and he is a US Senator that shows no constraint and consideration with his remarks about our President, knowing full well that they have a dramatic effect on the morale of our troops and our standing in the world. I'll let you decide if that's un-American. I'll just say that it's pathetic and reckless.

Now....just to stir things up....What do you guys think about the assertion that Michael Moore's actions are un-American? Many are probably going to jump to his defense under freedom of speech. I personally look at the stories about his movie being distributed by Hesbolah sponsored media outlets as a source of disgust. I think about his movie being shown across the Middle East and it pi$$es me off to no end. You will claim it's free speech, but I'll call it as I see it.....it's hatred of America. Knowing full well that his movie contained a huge amounts of distortions and deceptions, he still went ahead with his media blitzkrieg, just because it served his political goal. His aim was purely to enflame both the US public and those abroad, no matter how much truth there was to his positions. Boiled down, he sought to damage the standing of the President and the US during a time of war using deception, just because he didn't agree with it. I guess I'm just one of those narrow minded "STUPID AMERICANS", but I don't think that we can narrow the definition of un-American far enough to exclude his fat a$$.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 05:57 PM
Of course, Adam, you are absolutely right. I can feel the patriotism exuding from every word you, Kerry and Michael Moore use when criticizing the President.

You can twist the First Amendment to support anti-American activities as you see fit, but I'll call a spade a spade. Kerry has undermined the war effort for his own political gain by coming up with this insanely stupid position that the war is a mistake - but he's in favor of it - and that is just plain wrong. The vast media conspiracy between its liberal members and the intellectual elites to hoodwink the people in order to secure this election for their chosen candidate is un-American and un-democratic.

I don't mind someone exercising their rights and conscience, but there is a requirement that you be CORRECT or history will judge you very badly (as will the rest of us today). How can you all be so certain that you are correct in opposing this war? Your crystal ball must be working better than mine. I see two great successes in Afghanistan and Iraq. I kid you not, I teared up at the sight of Afghanis walking many miles to vote. America did that.

Those who voted against Lincoln in 1864 were wrong. McClellan was wrong. The hateful media was wrong. Luckily, the people who were right won the day in 1864; the slaves were freed, the nation preserved, and Lincoln's legacy as one of the greatest leaders in US history secured.

For one to oppose the efforts of our countrymen as they are in harms way, one must absolutely be right about the war being a mistake. If you're not right... what would you call it?
Posted By: lomb7 Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 06:34 PM
I always find humor in that when there is a Rep. in the White House there is the evil liberial media out to get him. When a Dem. is in the white house it is a vast right wing with the religious faction out to get them. All in all I feel that when an election comes around both groups love feeding and breeding on the fears that "could" happen.

I will not say how I am voting but I am VERY tired of the fear card being played. Look back on history and how fear was used to manipulate votes. USSR, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, the "axis of evil" and now terror.

Another question...If we are at war with terrorism yet we do not have a clear understanding of who is in the ranks of that group, how do you know who the enemy really is and when do you know if you've won the war or when it is over? Kind of like the "war on drugs". How are we doing in that war that's been going on for 20+ years. I just read that we are doubling our forces in Columbia so it must be going great....
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 07:31 PM
Show me where I said that I agree with everything Kerry and/or Michael Moore have to say, BigWill. I don't think you'll be able to find it.

In reply to:

How can you all be so certain that you are correct in opposing this war?




And how can you be so certain that you are correct in supporting this war? For the record, I think all of us supported going into Afghanistan, so that point is moot. Where I see the great blunder is in Iraq. It's almost enough to make one cry when their are daily car bombings, killings and kidnappings. Large parts of the country are simply not under our control at all. Many of them in Shiite areas, the parts of the country that were supposed to be welcoming us with open arms after we liberated them. Parts of Baghdad aren't even safe. Hell, even the Green Zone, our supposed safe haven over there, isn't safe. There have been reports from entrenched reporters that say that the educated Iraqis, including those who opposed Saddam, estimate that if free elections were to be held today and Saddam was on the ticket, Saddam would win. They would rather choose relative security under a dictator than our brand of freedom. That's enough to make one cry. And the biggest reason for that, I'd wager, is that Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism, not a safe haven from it.

And I know you're set on the Civil War/War on Terrorism analogy now, but I really don't find it to be that appropriate.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 07:57 PM
"And how can you be so certain that you are correct in supporting this war?"

Supporting one's country in a war seems like the "default" position to take. Given evidence that the war is a mistake, I would support bringing the troops home. I'm not in favor of undermining the war effort for the political gain of one candidate or party.

When there are elections in Iraq and the bad guys are defeated, regardless of who our President is, the question of whether it all was worth it will be answered.

Lomb7, the Democrats are equally guilty of playing upon voters' fears; fear over Social Security privatization, the draft, Roe v Wade, Armageddon, etc...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 11:02 PM
In reply to:

You can twist the First Amendment to support anti-American activities as you see fit, but I'll call a spade a spade.


The beatiful thing about this country is that one person's idea of what "American" is does not define the word. People who protest the war aren't being anti-American. That label gets slapped around so much it's practically meaningless, anyway. When I protest the war, or say I think the President made a mistake in taking that course of action, it's because I feel in my AMERICAN GUT that it is wrong.

I didn't like the idea before we went in. I didn't like it when we took over Baghdad. I still didn't like it after we had Saddam. And now more than ever, I don't like the daily violence occuring because we are there.

I am an American goddamnit, with strong emotions about what is wrong and right for the country. I may be WRONG, but that doesn't make me un-American. You insult me, and everyone else who disagrees with Bush decisions, to suggest otherwise.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/17/04 11:43 PM
I went back and read my posts, but could not find anything to suggest I said you are un-American.

I did say that if you are protesting against your own side in a war, then you had better be correct. I also said that I felt Kerry and his crew are using the war to attack the President - and thus undermining the war effort - for their own political gain. You, unlike Kerry, have the integrity of being consistently opposed to the war.

IMO, if the Democrats had wanted to run an anti-war attack campaign, then they should have chosen an anti-war candidate. I'm sorry if your feelings got hurt. Hopefully we'll both live to be decrepit old men, and see what the history books will say.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 12:52 AM
It's not me I'm worried about so much. It's my kid(s). Quite frankly, what GWB has done -- not that he started the war, but that he doens't know how to win the peace -- has done more harm than good, in my opinion. And I also think he doesn't really care enough to try to fix it. The NY Times article I last linked to talks about WHY he doesn't care enough to fix it.

He trusts in his faith to lead him through, but you also need to care about facts, which he does not. He is putting the entire country at risk with only his faith to see us through. Doesn't that scare you?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 12:57 AM
In reply to:

For one to oppose the efforts of our countrymen as they are in harms way, one must absolutely be right about the war being a mistake. If you're not right... what would you call it?


Kerry does not oppose the efforts of our countrymen as they are in harms way. He commends their efforts. Kerry opposes the President, who is not and has never been in harm's way.

Calling a leader's actions into question does not tarnish those who MUST serve obediently under him.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 01:12 AM
"He trusts in his faith to lead him through, but you also need to care about facts, which he does not. He is putting the entire country at risk with only his faith to see us through. Doesn't that scare you?"

The situation in Iraq is actually looking pretty good, IMO. They have what - 125,000 Iraqi troops trained? We're moving on Fallujah, which indicates to me that the Iraqis are ready to take over control of security operations after the battle. I'm guessing the assault on Fallujah was delayed because they knew it would be an ugly scene for American troops to hold long term. The Iraqi forces must be ready now to hold the town afterwards.

Bush isn't making all of these decisions. But, whoever is has really shown tactical brilliance, a strong desire to limit US casualties, an intent to minimize civilian casualties and win hearts and minds. Same goes for the war in Afghanistan.

Ask the Russians about trying to take over Afghanistan. Ask the Iranians about fighting the Iraqis. What the military has accomplished is no small feat. Whoever is calling the shots needs to stay there, IMO.

And no, I'm not anymore scared with Bush at the helm. We have always been at risk. We grew up with the threat of Soviet missiles raining down at any time (my commie sister had me really freaked out about that stuff when I was little). I'd be more concerned if we showed weakness now.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 02:48 AM
I had to drop that last post in a hurry because the baby woke up from his nap. I wasted his whole nap up here on the computer - stupid, stupid, stupid!

"Kerry does not oppose the efforts of our countrymen as they are in harms way. He commends their efforts. Kerry opposes the President, who is not and has never been in harm's way.

Calling a leader's actions into question does not tarnish those who MUST serve obediently under him."

In general, the President has not been in harms way, but his trip to Iraq at Xmas (or was it Thanksgiving?) was pretty cool. The troops sure seemed to get a charge out of it.

Kerry is careful in his speech to not belittle our soldiers (at least in this war ), but he certainly has denegrated the Iraqis and the soldiers our allies have contributed. Moreover, his criticisms of the way it has been waged IS an attack on our military. Bush didn't decide how many troops we would have there, Bush didn't decide which troops would be used where, Bush doesn't select their missions, their areas of operation, etc... A President would be a fool to think he knows better than his experienced generals and military advisors.

And, IMO, criticisms of the reasons for going to war (criticisms of Bush) undermines our efforts, puts the troops at greater risk and negatively effects their morale.

Assuming Kerry is elected, is he going to hang tough if things get nasty in "Bush's War"? I would expect a hard push by the terrorists to test his resolve. Kerry might just withdraw as he has stated publicly to everyone - including the terrorists - that this is a mistake. And he always has the convenient excuse that Bush started it.

If Bush is re-elected, the insurgents and terrorists know they're in deep do-do.

Also, Bush has the backing of the military personnel by a ratio of 4:1.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 03:59 AM
In reply to:

A President would be a fool to think he knows better than his experienced generals and military advisors.


Would experienced generals send troops into the arena without weapons or proper equipment? http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/1029996.html This speaks to there being not enough American troops to properly win the war in Iraq. Since there aren'yt any more American troops to spare, don't you think it would be great to have the support of other countries willing to send theirs? If this war is right, then surely we could have convinced other countries of that.

Of course the military supports the President. That doesn't mean they think he's managing the war well, though. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/889189.cms
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 05:13 AM
You're reachin'.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 07:16 AM
PMB writes:

"If this war is right, then surely we could have convinced other countries of that."

Only if those countries are 'right,' pmb. The post bipolar world is very different. Europe doesn't need us to protect them from the Soviet Union anymore. France and Schroeder's Germany are intent on establishing Europe as a counterweight to the US. France has a historical interest in frustrating US policy. France made its peace with terrorism in the 80's. France profited from the Oil for Food program, stole the food out of babies' mouths, while Sadam Hussein starved Iraq's children. France sold Iraq weapons even after the commencement of hostilities. Do you think the Arab world would go to war with us to fight the monstrous Ba'athist regime? Saddam Hussein was a hero to the Arabs. Do you think the largely Muslim non-aligned nations would go to war with us to fight terrorism?

Is that the test for US policy now? Do we require the endorsement of these moral imbeciles to validate our foreign policy? See if we can get France and the Arabs to help us fight terrorism and monstrous regimes in search of WMD before we protect ourselves with force?

The issue is whether we are a sovereign nation. You criticize our morality and national leadership for deposing Sadam Hussein and the Ba'athist Nazis. I find it interesting.

I saw an interview the other day with this fella who is investigating mass graves in Iraq. He found hundreds of skulls with the tops removed. It puzzled him. Then he interviewed survivors. The Ba'athists sawed off the tops of some people's skulls and dripped acid on their brains. Made for great fun. Rape was a national policy and sport for the ruling class. How many hundreds of thousands of people did Saddam Hussein murder? But hey, PMB, we're the bad guys, right? Better get Kerry in there so he can talk with the French about helping us out. Someone is dreaming.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 03:16 PM
In reply to:

blah blah ... blah blah blah ... blah blah ...


Hmmmm. I can't say I agree with you.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 05:02 PM
I looked forward to your response to the obvious truths of my post. I take your post to be an admission that you cannot make a factual or rational response.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/18/04 05:59 PM
Sorry. I just posted the first thing that came to mind. I usually don't do that, as you know, but I've been wanting to do it for so long I couldn't resist. Consider this the catch-all. It won't happen again.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/19/04 01:58 AM
This is totally irrelevant, but I thought it was funny:


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/19/04 05:19 PM
Are you comparing John Kerry to Jesus?!

Actually, I can understand how you might mistake John Kerry for Jesus if you believe all that the media is saying - particularly CNN, NY Times and the LA Times. If he gets elected he's going to make the crippled walk again, bring free health care to all, give everybody a great job and wave a magic wand in Iraq.
What's next? Turning Lake Erie into Lucky Lager? That would definitely capture the blue collar vote in Cleveland.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/19/04 06:18 PM
Come on now. The picture is clearly a comment on Bush/Rove's campaign tactics, not on Kerry's similarity to Jesus.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/19/04 06:22 PM
Oh, sweet! According to 5-Star Psychic Advice, Kerry will beat Bush with 23% or more of the popular vote.

I can rest easy now.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/19/04 06:29 PM
Here are some hilarious and not-so-hilarious letters written by American's to Brits who tried to convince them to vote for Kerry. Bi-partisan, and priceless!
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/19/04 07:12 PM
I like the one by the "anglophile", asking them for more advice - but please don't use any big, fancy words.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/19/04 09:31 PM
"After a regional summit in the Tajik capital, Putin said, “International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term. If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power.”"

That seems to support the notion, widely ridiculed here, that the terrorists would love to see Kerry elected. I suppose they would really just love to see Bush punished for his efforts against the terrorists and his efforts to address the underlying causes of terrorism.

Seems pretty simple for us voters: if the terrorists AND the French are for Kerry, we've gotta vote for Bush.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/19/04 09:42 PM
It's simple for both sides, actually. And since when do you care what other countries think of us? And aren't you pissed that your vote for Bush in California will be trampled into the dirt (electoral-collegially speaking) by all the Kerry votes here?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/19/04 11:12 PM
Hopefully, your side will think that way in many states and not turn up at the polls. Maybe "we'll" spring a few upsets.
BTW, I vote religously (and twice - my wife votes the whole card the same way I do ).
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/20/04 01:04 AM
In reply to:

my wife votes the whole card the same way I do


I hear that's what happened in Afghanistan, too...

I kid you. I kid.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/20/04 09:29 PM
More Kerry humor -- with pictures.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/20/04 09:33 PM
In other news, Iran has just endorsed Bush, saying they prefer Republicans because Democrats pressure them to improve their human rights record.

Niiiice.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 01:18 AM
A slightly different direction, but does anyone know a good unbiased site to go to to compare the people running in the lesser elections. We are voting for more then just president and I don't know anything about these other people. I am not one to just vote down a party line, but would like to have some information to try to make at least a slightly informed decision rather then walking in and not even recognizing any names.

I guess I could just vote for all the challengers, to counteract all those incumbent votes
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 01:44 AM
PMB, you really are easy to fool. You really think the Mullahs running Iran prefer a Bush victory when Bush has identified them as 1/3 of the axis of evil and has already taken out Iraq?

In case you missed the mullah's sense of humor, here's a report that the Revolutionary Guards have written your friend Kofi Annan and requested observer status so they can monitor our presidential elections. They want to be present at polling places so they can ridicule voters and advise them that Iran is the most democratic government in the world. I don't know, perhaps you agree.

__________________________
"Iran's hardline Basij militia has written to UN secretary general Kofi Annan to ask if the Islamic republic can send observers to the US presidential election in November, a government newspaper said.

"By this symbolic request, we want to ridicule the so-called democratic slogans of the American leaders," a Basij official, Said Toutunshian, told the Iran newspaper.

"We want to say to the whole world that the presence of observers from the Islamic republic of Iran, the most democratic regime in the world, is necessary to guarantee the smooth running of the American elections."

The Basij is a volunteer army attached to Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the Islamic republic's ideological army.

Predominantly Western groups frequently send observers to pass judgment on the "democratic status" of elections in other countries."
__________________

PMB, you may also be interested to note that 8 democratic congressmen have also asked Kofi Annan to permit observers from Syria, North Korea and Iran in order to help guaranty free elections here in the USA.

"WASHINGTON – The United Nations has turned down a controversial request by nine members of the U.S. Congress to assign international observers to the U.S. presidential election in November.

The request came in the form of a letter drafted by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and signed by eight other members of the House.

"We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy," the lawmakers wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

"Besides Johnson, the other representatives signing the letter to Annan – all Democrats – were Julia Carson of Indiana; Jerrold Nadler, Edolphus Towns, Joseph Crowley and Carolyn B. Maloney, all of New York; Raul Grijalva of Arizona, Corrine Brown of Florida, Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, Danny K. Davis of Illinois and Michael M. Honda of CaliforniaJohnson was an early supporter of Sen. John Edwards' campaign for the presidency. Yesterday Edwards was selected as John Kerry's Democratic Party running mate.

"Generally, the United Nations does not intervene in electoral affairs unless the request comes from a national government or an electoral authority – not the legislative branch," said U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe.

Nevertheless, the proposal by Johnson and the other members of the House has raised the hackles of Republicans and others who saw irony in the timing of the announcement – just before America's Independence Day celebrations.

"Let me get this straight," wrote Joe Mariani in GOPUSA.com. "A group of Democrats want to bring some people from countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, China and Cuba – people that have never seen a democratic election in their lifetimes – to sit in judgment on our elections? What kind of voodoo politics is that? The last time a foreign body had any direct influence over the political process of this country, the situation was corrected by a war for our freedom from British rule. Are these so-called Americans so willing to surrender that hard-won right of self-determination now, and to such a shamelessly scandal-ridden group of anti-American dictatorships and terrorist sympathizers? We may as well dissolve the Union now and save ourselves the pain of watching it done for us."

The Democrats said they feared a repeat of the 2000 election, which was won by George W. Bush, a Republican, through the Electoral College count even though he lost the popular vote.

The Democrats had asked in the letter for "international election monitors" to watch for "questionable practices and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day."

The Democratic Congress members wrote that they did not think sufficient reforms had been implemented to prevent another voting debacle.

"As the next Election Day approaches, there is more cause for alarm rather than less," the letter said.

Because the U.N. Charter bars violations of sovereignty, the State Department, or perhaps the Federal Election Commission, would have to invite observers, said U.N. officials. Monitoring would also have to be approved by the Security Council or the General Assembly.

Since the rule of thumb for vote monitoring is one observer for each 100 polling sites, about 2,000 foreigners would have to be deployed from Key West to Anchorage.

Johnson's letter points to "widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement" in Florida and other states in 2000, and it cites an April report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that found potential for "significant problems" this time around.

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," Johnson wrote. "This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added.

The Nov. 7, 2000, election was decided 36 days later when the U.S. Supreme Court made two rulings that stopped Democratic challenger Al Gore's attempt to recount some of the Florida votes. A number of independent investigations confirmed President Bush won the state's 25 electoral votes, giving him a total of 271 to Gore's 267.

Tom Kilgannon, president of Freedom Alliance, a group dedicated to protecting American sovereignty, admonished Johnson and her colleagues.

"Your appeal to the secretary general is alarming and embarrassing," he said. "As a Member of Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution and represent the people of the United States, it is disturbing, to say the least, that you would entrust the most sacred act of American democracy – our presidential election – to an international institution, which is unaccountable to the American people and mired by scandal and corruption."

Kilgannon said the request "undermines U.S. sovereignty, demoralizes American servicemen who are fighting to build democratic governments abroad and sends the message worldwide that the United States is nothing more than a Third World nation unable to police itself."

Stories about the action by the members of Congress appeared all over the world – from Tehran to Uraguay and to China."
________________________

So, PMB, do you sense that the Democratic Party has drifted somewhere into the dark regions of insanity? A substantial portion of the Democratic party's coallition hates America ... the party has to cater to its constituents. That's the problem with the new Democratic party.




Posted By: bray Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 01:45 AM
I highly recomend contacting the League of Women Voters. They have comprehensive information on all canidates.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 02:36 AM
In reply to:

A substantial portion of the Democratic party's coallition hates America.


I can't take you seriously or have a civil, respectful conversation with you if you continue to make that accusation. Look back in this thread's recent history to see my feelings on this entirely incorrect crutch of an accusation.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 03:10 AM
pmb, if you read the article I quoted which reports that 8 Democrat congressmen wrote Kofi Annan and requested observers from Iran, Syria, and North Korea to monitor our elections for fairness, I am sure you would also conclude that these folks either have a bizarre sense of humor or hate America. Now, if you agree with their request, I'll revise my opinion of you. So, please don't take my post as suggesting that you or most Democrats hate America. I'm not suggesting that all Democrats hate the USA, but I think there is a Democratic constituency which does. I'm a registered Democrat, and have been since before there were Axiom speakers. I'm just honest enough to admit that there's a problem here and wish the Democratic leadership would come out and denounce the request of these 8 Congressmen.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 03:31 AM
Neither humor nor hate are their motivations. I agree that they may be a bit misguided, but desperation and fed-upness in general can do that to people.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 03:42 AM
Does anybody get BBC2? If so, can you record this show for me?

The Power of Nightmates: The Making of a Terror Myth

This quote about sums up the series:

Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."

Before you dismiss this series altogether, please read the article linked above first. Then argue.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 04:07 AM

Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 04:09 AM

Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 04:18 AM
See the debris? How many folks or parts among them?



You want to entertain that the 9/11 attacks were media fabrications, a CIA plot, the work of the Jews, never happened, that there is no terrorist threat, that the terrorists did not attack us, that there is no war being waged by Islamo-Fascists against the West, that they didn't take the heads of Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, Jim Bigley, etc. etc. etc., Islamo-Fascists are not committing genocide in Darfur, they are not killing Sikhs, Hindus, Ba'hais, Buddhists, they're not really blowing busses, murdering hundreds of school kids at a time, blowing up pizza parlors, naming streets after murderers ... right, PMB, let's discuss how what's happening isn't happening, I mean, after all, the Guardian says what is - isn't, good enough for you is it?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 04:32 AM
The fact that it occured is precisely the reason we need to be damned sure it was really the act of a globally powerful organization and not just the coincidence of good planning and poor security.

But it's the fear instilled in us that it can happen again "at any time" that this documentary focuses on. Yes, they got us once, and in a way we couldn't possibly ignore. Did you know not a single person we've captured in the wake of 9/11 has been convincingly tied to Al-Qaeda, and that the name "Al Qaeda" was only coined after 9/11 because it was legally necessary to have a named target in order to prosecute the uncaptured bin Laden? The War on Terror presupposes a globally-connected terror network. There's simply no evidence to support the existence of such a network.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 04:36 AM
Personally, I think "Al Qaeda" is a public relations fig leaf for the great Jihad - an ad hoc action group, one of many who play to the crowd, to the cheering multitude.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 04:42 AM
2x6, I've seen the pics and don't need to be reminded.

Your knee must have jerked right into your jaw because you're putting words into my mouth yet again. Neither I nor the documentary producer ever made the suggestion that the attacks on 9/11 were a fabrication. Where you got that idea is beyond me, really. Neither did he suggest there is no terrorist threat. He is suggesting that the theat to us has been blown way out of proportion, and the threat as described to us by our leaders is not based on facts, but fear.

The fact is, you can't think rationally in a state of fear. You know, what FDR said, and all that.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 04:53 AM
I believe you participated in the thread where some folks here suggested that no airliner hit the Pentagon, but rather it was a military cruise missile - by inference, one of our own. You may believe what you call the "terrorist threat" is exaggerated - I believe there is a war being fought against us. The EU knows it as well, but are looking to make their separate peace, their accommodation. I think that by suggesting that the "terrorist threat" is exaggerated, the necessary inference is that our efforts are unbalanced - an over reaction. I disagree. I think we our response is fitfull, tentative, and in search of coherence, but better than the policies which I would expect from Kerry.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 08:00 AM
It's time once again to go off on a tangent.

In reply to:

So, PMB, do you sense that the Democratic Party has drifted somewhere into the dark regions of insanity?




Speaking of drifting into the regions of insanity...

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_14313.shtml

Yes, the Bush administration is standing by it's approval of a book that claims that the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's flood. And the promised review on the legality and appropriateness of government agencies selling Christian viewpoints apparently never took place.

Quite honestly, it scares me that the current presidential administration approves this book. When our government pushes religious fundamentalism instead of truth, I get a little worried.

Separation of Church and State? What's that?


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 02:31 PM
2x6- i think pulling out those pics and posting them is the 'classic' scare tactic that all republicans are clinging to right now. every single interview, news clip, or article i see on george w, he is ranting on and on about war, world terror, and immenent(sp) danger. i even saw cheney go so far as to say that if kerry is elected, a nuclear attack on american soil is inevitable.. ? WHAT?? how could he possibly know that.. its plain and simple scare tactics.

george, dick, donald, rush, you, and the rest of the war loving republicans, try to keep the edge by making people fear a 'what if' scenario. every day is a 'what if' scenario, regardless of who is the president. and i think the republican party is desperate, and just like you showing the 9/11 pics, they are promoting fear in america, and then using it to their advantage. its really kinda sad..

bigjohn
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 03:20 PM
2X6-thanks for the pix-did Saddam send those planes? I just might let my wife put her Kerry/Edwards sign on our yard yet.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 03:35 PM
Hello fellas

Gotta make this quick as I have a mountain to move here ...

No, Saddam did not "send the planes," no one "sent" the planes. The planes were hijacked by cadres of Jihadists who comforted the passengers, won their trust, convinced them to sit in terror with the promise that they were heading back to the airport and then used as missiles full of Jet-A to bring down the twin towers, Pentagon, and one probably on its way to the White House or Capitol went down in Pennsylvania.

The pictures were in response to PMB's argument that the "terrorist threat" is being exaggerated for political purposes by the administration. I think folks forget what we are dealing with.

As to the reasons for going to war in Iraq, refer back to previous posts. If a refresher is required, I'll get back to y'all later.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 04:36 PM
I'll be waiting for that refresher. Maybe we could rehash the Deulfer report and the look on Bush's face when asked about 3 things he had done wrong in his tenure. Inability to admit and correct mistakes will keep us in Iraq for a long time.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 04:55 PM
More opinions:

I think people who deny that there is no terrorist threat are seriously in error. I think that people who feel the threat will go away if we do nothing are also in error.

That we will be hit again seems inevitable. Maybe not in the next couple years, maybe not in twenty or thirty, but when whole races of people - whole continents - are being whipped into a frenzy of hate towards the US, how else do you expect that to end?

If I had to predict another attack, I would say shortly after this election, regardless of who wins.

Maybe we could get the French, Russians, and Chinese to put in a good word for us and the bastards will attack somebody else?

I think we're better off dealing with this now than leaving it for future generations - when the enemy will likely be much stronger, more sophisticated and with more dangerous weapons. Judging by Arab tactics in the past 50 years, negotiated intervals of peace are really only lulls that allow them to re-arm, re-group, and re-position for the next attack.

BTW, in one of those debates Bush said unequivocally that Iran WILL NOT have nuclear weapons. Kerry talked about building coalitions when asked the same question. I think there is little doubt who the Iranian leadership endorses.

Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 05:05 PM
The short answer, Jorge, is Saddam had to go. The Ba'athist Nazi regime in Iraq was a "pre-existing condition" made intolerable after 9/11. Regimes like that cannot be tolerated anymore. The world is too small, such regimes, are simply too dangerous. Deulfer's report made it pretty clear that Hussein could have cranked up his WMD programs any time he wished, but certainly would have after the sanctions regime failed and the oil revenues started to roll in again. In case you forgot, the EU wanted to end sanctions so they could sell Hussein more weapons and dual purpose technology - France's only reservation about ending the sanctions was the Oil for Palaces scam they, the UN, the Russians, and Chinese were running on the world.

If you prefer Europe's foreign policy to ours, just see what good work they've done in Iran. They can be proud when Iran detonates its first nuke. France must still be smarting that the weapons grade fissile material reactor France sold to Saddam Hussein was destroyed by Israel in a preemptive air strike. France seems to be working with the Mullahs in Iran to make sure that they decentralize their nuclear efforts so they are not so vulnerable to such a strike.

Anyone surprised that France would not join us in Iraq? Anyone doubt that there is a war being waged against us?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 05:45 PM
In reply to:

but when whole races of people - whole continents - are being whipped into a frenzy of hate towards the US


... It would be extremely difficult to argue that this is happening without any connection to the situation in Iraq.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 05:46 PM
2X6, I don't think you get much argument from anyone that Saddam had to go. My problem with the war is that huge missteps and mistakes have been made. For example,against the advice of his military advisors, the Iraqi Army was abolished, now viewed by many (Bremer, Franks, et al) as a crucial error. Do you really view the war effort as succeeding or even advancing? We're occupying Iraq and struggling to hold our own.

We can't rid the world of all the "bad guys" like Saddam alone. If our foreign policy is going to be one of preemptive strikes-get ready for the draft. North Korea, Iran, name your "evil_doer", how do we cover them all? Bush should have got the job done in Afghanistan-got bin Laden and then moved on. His idea that Saddam was an "imminent threat" has been proved wrong-we're in Iraq because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice thought it would be another short military exercise of shock and awe. Destroy a country from 20,000 feet then go in and mop up. Now we occupy a country without the troop numbers to adequately do the job. Bush's shortcomings as a commander in chief are apparent - whether it's Kerry or Bush, Bush has put us in a no-win position.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 05:53 PM
Our country is in a state of intellectual retreat into the dark ages. How else can you explain the recent rise of faith-based agendas (e.g. sexual 'education', creationism, intelligent design)?

Don't you all worry your pretty little about anything. The King will take care of everything.

And now they're trying to pass the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, which does the following, and I quote:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'."

So, if a policy is cited as having God as its source or inspiration, it'll be uncontestable.

WTF is happening to our country?! So now, the US Gov't is suddenly the final authority on God's word?

Theocracy, here we come.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 06:06 PM
More on the Constitution Restoration Act here. Nice use of oxymoron. Restoration my ass.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 06:21 PM
Jorge, I don't agree that the war has been mishandled, we could not have won it faster. I think the post-war situation has been mishandled, but I don't think the problem was not paying off Saddam's army, but more like failing to secure weapons caches and by tolerating Iraqis walking around with weapons. I think we should have made an order that anyone carrying a weapon will be shot on sight, and then shoot them. Gotta go now, more later
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 07:17 PM
Jesus that's scary, Peter.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 08:24 PM
"In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but when whole races of people - whole continents - are being whipped into a frenzy of hate towards the US



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... It would be extremely difficult to argue that this is happening without any connection to the situation in Iraq."


Oh c'mon. They've been teaching hate for the US over there for a LONG time.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 08:49 PM
jorge016, no offense, but you sound just like that Terry McCauliffe (sp?) guy from the DNC. Since you are so well informed - could you please answer the question I had earlier: What is there to like about John Kerry? What has he done since his return from Vietnam that would make me think he would be a good President?

About Iraq:

"His idea that Saddam was an "imminent threat" has been proved wrong-we're in Iraq because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice thought it would be another short military exercise of shock and awe. Destroy a country from 20,000 feet then go in and mop up. Now we occupy a country without the troop numbers to adequately do the job. Bush's shortcomings as a commander in chief are apparent - whether it's Kerry or Bush, Bush has put us in a no-win position."

If indeed Saddam did not posess the WMD stockpiles then he probably was not an IMMEDIATE threat to the US. Eventually, he would have been - and at that time he would have been stronger and more dangerous. If you have termites in your house is there any reason to wait?

It was a short and impressive campaign, despite all the attempts by the media and analysts to convince us otherwise (supply lines, not securing ground on the push to Baghdad, etc...). How many troops would it take to secure a nation of 28 million by force? An extra 25,000? Please. The Iraqis have to assume the reins regardless of the number of our troops on the ground.

You know, the party line stuff is unnecessary here (do it all you want though ). The election won't be won or lost on the Axiom forum - I think we all know how we're voting already.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 09:26 PM
BigWill There's precious little to like about Kerry-I've said that many times in this forum. There's just a helluva lot less to like in Bush/Cheney. Their arrogance and deception have absolutely diminished the US in the eyes of the world. It pisses me off to no end to watch this administration blunder about-yet 47% of this country think that he's been annointed by God to lead us. I've got 2 little 6-month old boys and I look at them and think that in all probability we'll still be in Iraq in 20 years and this mess will be theirs. Here's your party line-I'd rather this country be led at wartime by someone who's done something beside run a very poor major league baseball team. Look at Bush's career and tell me what qualified him to sit in the Oval Office-must have been his bloodline. For all his BS and rhetoric I'd rather have a man like Kerry who had guts enough to fight for his country rather than hide behind his politician daddy.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 10:30 PM
Yes, but you specifically said "whipped into a frenzy." No matter how misguided, there's no greater aid to frenzy-whipping than being able to point your finger and say "Look! See what they're doing to us now?"
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 10:38 PM
Jorge, I disagree with your premise that Bush is responsible for our "diminished [status] in the eyes of the world." I also strongly disagree with the absurd contention that Bush misled or deceived us. As to the former, the EU was already going its own direction. That's why we couldn't even hope to maintain a sanctions regime against Iraq. Support for economic sanctions was failing - don't you remember the cries that the US led sanctions regime was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi babies? You weren't one of those who believed that, were you? In reality, Saddam, the UN Secretariat, and 3 Security Council Member states, France, Russia and China, were not only scamming the Oil for Food program for Billions of dollars, they were using the "food" money for weapons, palaces and other perks for the Ba'athist Nazi leadership of Iraq.

UN inspections could not work without totally open cooperation and transparency from the Iraqi government. Saddam Hussein made a monkey out of those inspectors. If he had nothing to hide, then he must have taken the chance of US reaction based on French assurances that they would veto any resolution for US use of force. The UN and the left took the position, "please fool me," and Hussein obliged. After 9/11 the US absolutely could not take the chance that Iraq would acquire more WMD ... yes, "more." We know they had them, because they used them to the cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. So, all this moaning that the Bush administration "deceived" the people and the world community, or abandoned our traditional allies is nonsense. That alliance was dead - died with the evaporation of the Soviet threat to Europe. Personally, I'd rather an administration prepared to act for our national defense and interests than an administration which requires the support of the EU.

Where is NATO now? Do they have our back? Are they willing to send any forces to help stabilize Iraq? The answer is no.

Personally, I'm not an optimist - Bush may believe that democracy has a chance in an Arab nation. I don't. The Kurds in the north could support a democratic form of government, but they are not Arabs. The idea of Sunis or Shias supporting democracy is absurd, but like I said, Bush is an optimist - maybe he's right.

I think many of Bush's policy positions are wrong - stem cell research, refusal to obtain discounts from drug companies for large scale government purchases ... but for me, the over riding issue is what is referred to as the War on Terrorism. I think it is more accurate to call it the Jihadist Islamo-Fascist war on the non-Muslim world, but that would be a politically incorrect mouthfull. IMHO Bush, the simple ass kicking cowboy gets it. The French don't. There's evil afoot, and he's going after it. That is a strong moral voice. When Bush announced, "You're either with us or against us," he was at his best - simple, forceful - recognizing that evil in the world had acted so boldly on 9/11 that we couldn't sweep it under the rug any longer - no more responsive gestures like Clinton did by lobbing a few cruise missiles here or there. We are at war - but a war not of our choosing or making. Better win. Only Bush has winning as a policy goal.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 11:06 PM
In reply to:

If indeed Saddam did not posess the WMD stockpiles...


You've got to be kidding me that you still have doubts about this.
In reply to:

Eventually, he would have been - and at that time he would have been stronger and more dangerous.


It brings a warm feeling to my heart to know we've got these hypothetical situations covered.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/21/04 11:44 PM
PMB, how can you seriously contend that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein had no WMD? He used them!!! If he destroyed them all, then he was a fool for playing games with the UN inspectors. Hans Blix's boys needed total cooperation from Hussein because Blix's boys are the guys you call when you DON'T want to find something. Why cover up if there's nothing to cover up?

PMB, it amazes me that a person as intelligent as you obviously are would question the proposition that Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Nazi police state would only get stronger and present a growing threat. Of course this proposition is true. The sanctions regime was collapsing - Saddam would have had the enormous revenues from sale of oil and the world would have demonstrated that it had neither the resolve or moral force to stop his expansionist criminal policies. Oh, did you forget Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia? Oh, I suppose Iraq's launching of dozens of SCUD missiles into Israeli neighborhoods doesn't foretell for you what the future with an oil rich Ba'athist regime in Iraq would have brought. You don't need a crystal ball for that one PMB, or you can play dumb and pretend everything would have been OK.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 05:15 AM


Oh, but life is so much simpler this way!
Posted By: BrenR Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 05:33 AM
Oh, hell, I don't read this thread, just view it to keep the New Messages number from piling up... but that says a whole lot even just scrolling through on my way to the next page button!!!

Bren R.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 05:34 AM
Sorry PMB, I obviously over estimated you. I won't ask you to try to reason your way through this discussion any more.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 05:44 AM
Whew! I feel as if a great weight has been lifted from my shoulders. It's like all the terrorists have gone home to their mommies, Saddam and Osama have committed suicide at the exact same moment and left letters of apology to the world beside them, and the Pope has reconsidered his position on birth control in third world countries.

... and I think to myself "What a wonderful world."
Oooh yeaaaaaahhhh.....

Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 03:22 PM
the "isolated from the world" is a red herring. we live in the age of global capitalism and are furthest from isolation than ever before. its simply a garbage idea fed to the uneducated masses. a policy dispute on Iraq doesn't have anything to do with isolating any country.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 04:00 PM
2X6-it's apparent you put no stock in the 9/11 Commission Report or the Deulfer Report. If you dismiss these reports as unviable it's easy to make a hypothetical link between Saddam and al Quaeda. Have you read either report-they are nonpartisan reports. Take a look.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 04:54 PM
I think you're right about that. It's impossible to go back to those isolationist days.

So... You all know Kerry is a completely unworthy candidate, but you guys back him anyway because you think Bush and the Christian right will take us back to Medieval times. That's pretty wacko, but whatever.

jorge016, remembering back four years ago, I recall the race for President having much to do about "character". After the scandal of the Clinton Presidency (which should have been downplayed by both sides, IMO) voters wanted someone with "character". I think Al Gore is 10 times the man that Kerry is, but he was unfairly tainted by the fallout from Clinton and lost. I don't agree with his populist positions most of the time, but at least he stakes his ground and lets the voters know what they're voting for. OTOH, the desperate shenanigans Kerry and the DNC is pulling right now are harmful to the democratic process.

Bush has "character". He was governor of Texas. He developed a reputation for working well with both sides. He had some significant policy achievements in Texas. He surrounded himself with competent advisors and a strong VP candidate. IMO, he was well qualified and it has shown in the strength of his leadership. Even if you don't agree with what he's done, you have to admit he is strong.

BTW, 2x6's post above - that Arab culture won't sustain democracy - reminded me of more parallels with the Civil War. The Yanks did not think freeing blacks was worth spilling their own blood. They thought that if the blacks wanted freedom, then they should free themselves. They thought that the blacks were inferior.

But, if Bush is re-elected and democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan flourish and widespread long-term changes occur in the Middle East that improves the lives of the entire world - how will history view Bush? If we elect Kerry, and withdraw from the world, allow evil regimes to thrive, weapons to proliferate, corrupt int'l bodies to subjugate our nat'l interests and those of the masses in the 3rd World - how will history view US?

I had my doubts about democracy in the Muslim world until I saw the Afghans walking miles and braving violence (especially the women) in order to vote. Those people must think that voting is really, really important.

If that is universally true, then the threat to democracy in the Middle East doesn't lie in some inherent deficiency of the people, but in the viciousness of their tyrannical rulers. That, and the efforts of their religous leaders to control the people and resist modernity. While you guys want to wage war on our relatively benign Christian right, we would be better off tearing down Muslim fundamentalism.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 05:12 PM
Will I agree with you about Gore-he was tainted by Clinton but also proved unable to build on Clinton successes.

Bush's character (or peoples impressions of it) is a sticky issue. What did you think of his 2000 attacks on John McCain? That was a pretty despicable display of politics at their worst. He claims to have no direct tie with the Swift Boat Vets, yet he did nothing to stop them and they did Kerry a good deal of harm. Bush looks to me to be a lot like every other politico - get elected whatever the cost. With a man like Carl Rove in charge there's no limits.

Finally Bush and the Christian right do scare me. I grew up in a fundamental Christian home where the world is black and white. The older I get the less I agree with that. Regardless of popular belief Billy Graham and God didn't annoint Bush. He was elected with the help of the electoral college process.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 05:43 PM
The Deulfer Report said many things that supported the case for war. It also said that there was a 5% chance the WMDs were not destroyed, but disappeared, right? I haven't read the report, but I have read the exact text of the White House draft of the request for authorization of the war in Iraq. Nowhere does it say that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000554.php
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/22/04 10:59 PM
I never thought Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. I'm fine with the destruction of his Nazi totalitarian police state. I think you may have missed my points, Jorge.

The games Saddam Hussein played with the UN inspectors in conjunction with the FACT that his regime repeatedly used weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield and against civilians led to the evaluation of the risk that he had such weapons. The results of that analysis necessarily changed after 9/11. Hussein's Ba'athist Nazi regime could not be permitted to persist when the probability that he had such weapons was so high, and in light of the imminent failure of the sanctions regime. Hussein + enormous oil revenues + a history of development, possession and use of WMD resulted in the proper decision to remove his regime.

Europe has now made its peace with the remaining Ba'athist Nazi state, Syria, and have endorsed the development of WMD by Syria so long as Syria agrees not to proliferate. Europe's request is made within months of the use by Syria of WMD in Sudan. Except for England and Italy, our traditional NATO allies are no longer our allies. This is not a failure on Bush's part, it is a failure of policy and strategic decision making by the European community.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/23/04 01:36 AM
2x6, is it possible that everybody knows what you're saying is true - but won't admit it in an election year? History is replete with examples of the good guys getting punished for sitting back and watching the bad guys get stronger.
How about the slave trade and 3/5ths compromises at the Constitutional Convention? If the founding fathers had had the foresight to tackle the issue early on, maybe we could have avoided the carnage of the Civil War.
If we can transform the Middle East now, what future, greater carnage might we avoid?
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/23/04 02:26 AM
BigWill, I may think the effort to establish a democratic state in Iraq is likely to fail, but it could happen, and you are correct, if the effort succeeded the benefits to the world could be enormous. Even though I'm a democrat, I'm rooting for Bush to succeed. We used to have a loyal opposition in this country. The relentless Republican attack on Clinton pretty much changed the landscape. I thought it was disgraceful. I think the same of the quality of the anti-Bush attacks.

Do you get the feeling that many anti-Bush folks are hoping his policies fail? That's partisanship raised above the best interests of the country.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: Politics - 10/23/04 05:30 AM
Here's some evidence to support the idea that democracy will not take hold:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52674-2004Oct21?language=printer

Remember that Abdel Aziz Hakim was once part of Da'wa, the organization the bombed the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait in '83. Hezbollah grew out of Da'wa.

Here's a quote from the guy:

"(The U.S. occupation) is primarily responsible for (the death of my brother) and the blood that is shed all over Iraq every day. Iraq must not remain occupied and the occupation must leave so that we can build Iraq as God wants us to do."

It seems like everybody knows what God wants these days.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 10/23/04 02:32 PM
Is anyone else getting a TON of phone calls (mostly recordings) from different canidates trying to get elected? Apparently, the DO NOT CALL list does not apply to politicians. Perhaps they came up with the idea to put it together just so they'd have a list to make calls from. After yet another call this morning, I've come up with a new policy on who I am voting for in the lesser elections. Anyone that calls goes on a list in my no column, which means I am voting for their opponent. Is this the best way to choose a canidate, obviously not, but I've had enough. I never got this many calls from telemarketers. I've probably got at least another call or two coming today, not to mention the ones always waiting on the answering machine when I get home from work.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: Politics - 10/23/04 04:27 PM
zarak, congrats on living in a state that the candidates care about.
How about all the TV ads? Are they on all the time or what? I saw a 527 ad (on the news - nobody's wasting any money out here in California) for Bush that was pretty strong, IMO. The one with the little girl who lost her mom on 9/11 - seen that one?

2x6, what do you make of the election in Afghanistan? Different culture? Different circumstances - ie, not surrounded by Islamic states? It looks to me like that country is improving in leaps and bounds from the Taliban days.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/23/04 04:48 PM
Afghanistan is not an Arab country, and has a large, educated expatriate population. It is also, for the most part, a tribal society. The women of Afghanistan are probably the most enthusiastic supporters of political reforms because they were so totally oppressed, by the Taliban fundamentalist Islamo-Fascists, in every way, sexually, educationally, politically, economically ...

However, don't be lulled into believing that the transformation of Afghani society will be easy or is destined for success. The country is still for the most part run by competing warlords, Taliban supporters have not left, Iran and anti-Musharef Pak elements are committed to bringing down Karzai and destroying the new Afghan government. Nonetheless, there appears to be a substantial portion of the population which is enormously relieved by their deliverance from the totalitarian terror regime of the Religious Fascists who long for the day when sports stadiums no longer host soccer matches but hangings and beheadings, when women are restored to their proper role as slaves ... I hope for the best but the contest isn't over.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: Politics - 10/23/04 11:59 PM
Perhaps this belongs in the "beer" thread:

Saturday, October 23, 2004 (Jakarta):


Muslim militants in Indonesia's capital vandalized a café popular with expatriates because it was serving beer during the Islamic fasting month of Ramadan, police and one of the militants said today.

The Star Deli was closed when around 300 members of the Islamic Defenders Front arrived just before midnight Friday.

They smashed its windows, chairs and neon signs advertising beer, said Mary Gregory, the cafe's owner.

Alawi Usman, a spokesman for the group, admitted vandalizing the establishment.

"We are against immorality," he said. "We are doing this for the future of the country's youth."

No one was injured in the attack, which police did nothing to stop, Usman said. Police confirmed the raid occurred, but declined say why they did not try to prevent it.

Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim nation, but its government is secular. It has significant Christian, Buddhist and Hindu populations.

Islamic militancy has risen in recent years and Al-Qaida-linked terrorists have carried out three bloody attacks, including the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings.

The Islamic Defenders Front was formed in 2000. It has a history of vandalizing entertainment centres during Ramadan. Many analysts say that extorting money from frightened bar owners is its primary motive. (AP)


Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: Politics - 10/24/04 03:13 AM
Yes, we get the TV ads too, but most of those are for the presidential race. Not as much for the lesser races.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/25/04 09:32 PM
I'd never heard of Operation Northwoods before today. It was a document, officially titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba", drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff under JFK describing various illicit methods for gaining public support for an invasion of Cuba. Of particular interest are pages 10 - 15 of the document. (It was declassified in 2001 prior to 9/11. Thank you, Freedom of Information Act!). You can access it here in PDF form.

Thankfully, the document was rejected by Robert McNamara, but even so, it's extremely scary to think that there were, and most likely still are people in the government who come up with scenarios like this.

Operation Northwoods is one case where the conspiracy theorists werer proven correct. To what extent is our foreign policy still subject to influence by the military-industrial complex?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/26/04 06:25 PM
Why I believe in our President

I believe in President George W. Bush. I've always believed him...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/26/04 06:37 PM
Nice informative links, pmbuko. Thanks.
It appears that they made the right call in scrapping that "plan". Even though Cuba is our ideological enemy, time has shown that Castro poses no threat to the US (once the Soviet missile deployments were halted).


"Thankfully, the document was rejected by Robert McNamara, but even so, it's extremely scary to think that there were, and most likely still are people in the government who come up with scenarios like this.

Operation Northwoods is one case where the conspiracy theorists werer proven correct. To what extent is our foreign policy still subject to influence by the military-industrial complex?"

I see no problem with exploring all options - brainstorming if you will - when it comes to securing our nation's interests.

The biggest conspiracy I see right now is that of our press in their efforts to see Kerry elected President.

To what extent do you think our foreign policy is subject to influence by the military-industrial complex?
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 10/26/04 06:56 PM
the fancy labels like "military industrial complex" are indicative of manipulation in and of itself. I though some of you were smarter than this.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/26/04 07:16 PM
Fancy labels? Indicative of manipulation? I suppose Dwight D. Eisenhower himself was tring to control the masses with fancy labels.

Gimme a break.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/27/04 09:56 PM
Quotes of the day:

Bush: "For a political candidate to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

Wesley Clark: "President Bush couldn't be more right. He jumped to conclusions about any connection between Saddam Hussein and 911. He jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction. He jumped to conclusions about the mission being accomplished. He jumped to conclusions about how we had enough troops on the ground to win the peace. And because he jumped to conclusions, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq may very well have their hands on powerful explosives to attack our troops, we are stuck in Iraq without a plan to win the peace, and Americans are less safe both at home and abroad. By doing all these things, he broke faith with our men and women in uniform. He has let them down. George W. Bush is unfit to be our Commander in Chief."
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 10/28/04 12:21 AM
heres a funny one for ya..

i am sure we will see more of this as the election gets closer. give it a few seconds to play.

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/28/04 12:26 AM
My uncle forwarded that one to me this morning.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 10/28/04 02:18 PM
pm, show me where he says the label: "military industrial complex". I never liked Eisenhower as a president anyway. while you may quote a speech from a president 50 years ago, its does nothing to deny the current context of the use of this label; its a hollow term oft repeated by liberals to scare people.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/28/04 08:09 PM
I was kind of glad to see this thread drop out of sight. It has sickened me to see the Democrats use the war as a political tool. Even if it is payback for the way Republicans needlessly attacked Clinton, it is not what Americans should be doing. I'm completely disgusted.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 10/28/04 08:52 PM
In reply to:

Democrats use the war as a political tool




just the democrats?? come on bigwill....

dubya is basing his WHOLE platform on the war, and his so called, "war against terrorism". how can you not say he is doing the exact same thing you are accusing the democrats of doing.

i trust that you have conviction in what you are saying, but i think you allow your blinders to obscure your vision. like it or not, the war IS a political tool, for both sides. and expect the BS to get deeper and deeper from both sides leading up to tuesday morning.

one of my best friends(he's republican) have decided we are gonna have a vote party at his place. drink beer, play poker, cook some ribs, and just watch the future unfold before our eyes. sounds like a great time.

bigjohn
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 10/29/04 03:16 AM
In reply to:

It has sickened me to see the Democrats use the war as a political tool. Even if it is payback for the way Republicans needlessly attacked Clinton, it is not what Americans should be doing. I'm completely disgusted.




Are you kidding me!? Democrats using the war as a political tool? Bush's entire presidency - his entire platform - is the war. Without the war, Bush would have nothing to run on. Honestly I'm really wondering how you could actually make a statement like that and not see the hypocrisy in it.

Sure the Democrats are using the war as a political tool, but if you're sickened at them you should be far more sickened at the extent to which the Republicans are using the war as a political tool.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/29/04 03:56 AM
Riffman,

"Liberal" is a much more oft-used label used to scare people. Now who's eating his own words?
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 10/29/04 02:53 PM
pm, I agree liberal is a label but I didn't want to be politically correct. It just takes too much typing. :/

I cannot control whether people think its a positive or negative label.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/29/04 07:09 PM
Speaking of negative labels...



This is a real clip from this video. Well, he's definitely human.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/29/04 08:13 PM
HERE's your political tool, BigWill. Link is to images of officially-endorsed mailings for the Bush/Cheney campaign.

This makes you sick, too, I hope.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/29/04 08:20 PM
bigjohn and Adam, you're both hopelessly wrong.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 10/29/04 09:14 PM
In reply to:

you're both hopelessly wrong



i know you are, but what am i?

politics aint fun. it is obvious that we just have core differences in how we think. what us right to you, is wrong to me, and vice versa.. it dont make either of us right or wrong, just different. regardless, i bet we could still sit down to some good music, drink a cold beer, and have a great time. you seem to get too rapped up in this bigwill.

i'm cool with ya man.. but it just makes no sense to call a man "hopelessly wrong", when your ideals and beliefs are a 180 degree opposite of the man you chastise. its like an apple, criticising a lemon for not being sweet enough.. thats just the way the lemon is. and if the lemon said the apple wasnt sour enough, would it make him right? nope. they are just two completely different fruits.

apples and lemons? next lesson is on the birds and the bees. dont miss it!!!

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/29/04 09:54 PM
When an apple and a lemon get together, are you left with lemples or appmons?
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/30/04 05:09 AM
"Sure the Democrats are using the war as a political tool, but if you're sickened at them you should be far more sickened at the extent to which the Republicans are using the war as a political tool."

If Bush had re-election at the forefront of his mind, the Iraq war would never have happened. He could have guaranteed himself 4 more years by coasting in on the laurels of his 9-11 performance and the triumph in Afghanistan. In politics it is abundantly clear that doing what you think is right is much more difficult than doing what is in your own selfish interest.

This election should have been decided after the first debate - when Kerry trotted out his anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-US, "but I'll hunt the terrorists and wage the Iraq war even better" diatribe. Still an inside joke apparently.

We've sunk so low that siding with the enemy, thereby jeopardizing the lives of our troops, is "fair game". If it furthers your political agenda then it's a-ok. "Some of these Supreme Court Justices are going to be dropping dead, so do what you gotta do boys", eh?

I don't blame Kerry and his advisors so much as I blame the media and the dopey public. Kerry's attacks in the first debate should have been political suicide, but the media called it a brilliant performance, inexplicably the people were not offended, and here we are.

We aren't disagreeing about play calling in a football game, bigjohn. We're disagreeing about what it means to be an American.

Kerry, in his little tough guy speech today in front of his airplane, said, "...AS AN AMERICAN (I want to hunt down Osama and the other terrorists and kill them)." Tell me - what perspectives, other than that of "as an American", do we want our President to have? He might as well have said, "As an American, I want to kill our enemies... but as a pansy-ass liberal pussy I really want to indulge in some national self-loathing, question what we have done in the past to bring this on ourselves, seek sympathy from the rest of the effete Western world, apologize for our crass and uncultured anti-intellectual populace, and - above all - calculate how this can be used to further my do-nothing political career."
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 10/30/04 07:53 AM
In reply to:

Kerry, in his little tough guy speech today in front of his airplane, said, "...AS AN AMERICAN (I want to hunt down Osama and the other terrorists and kill them)." Tell me - what perspectives, other than that of "as an American", do we want our President to have?




How bout "and as a citizen of the world?"

In reply to:

pansy-ass liberal pussy




Nice of you to raise the level of discourse, BigWill. Leave that kind of sophomoric crap out of here.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 10/30/04 01:04 PM
Nice post Big Will-pretty much covers every stereotype that the GOP embodies. This election should have been decided fairly in Florida in 2000-then we wouldn't have had to read a diatribe like yours.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 10/31/04 07:12 AM
Yikes, BigWill! Have you been hanging around Ann Coulter lately? Or maybe Carl Rove?

In reply to:

We're disagreeing about what it means to be an American.


Thank goodness nobody holds a patent on that label, or else a lot of us would be in trouble.

Listen.

I am an American. John Kerry is an American. George W. Bush is an American. Michael Moore is an American. Eugene V. Debs was an American. Joseph McCarthy was an American. Richard Nixon was an American. Timothy McVeigh was an American. Ted Kaczynski is an American.

My family is American and your family is American, but our histories and experiences are different. Do you believe it within your power or right to claim that your are MORE American than someone else?

There is no single definition for what it means to be an American. We are a country of individuals, each with our own views of the country and the world, and our place in them.

Each time you resort to the anti-US or un-American label, you harm your argument's credibility. John Walker Lindh is about the only person who deserves that label.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 10/31/04 08:51 PM
You're projecting, pmb. I never said I was more American than any of you guys. I was simply stating that for a politician to undermine the war effort of his own country - for his own selfish political gain (and not because he is ideologically opposed to the war) - is unAmerican. Period. The voters accepting such behavior is more a reflection of media manipulation and psuedo-intellectualism than it is an indication of love of country.

Kerry says he will continue the war, but calls it a mistake. He says he supports the troops, but he blasts the Commander-in-Chief, the generals, etc... for every gaffe in the war - real or imagined. He said yesterday that if he had been President, he may have invaded Iraq, too. Yes, no, maybe, maybe not, depends, wtf?!

The dude is all over the map on every issue except "tax the rich", but with the lives of our troops, the lives of the Iraqi citizenry, the security of our country, and the credibility of our national resolve all at stake, this is one "issue" that he needed to be clear on.

Why are all the anti-war people voting for Kerry? Hasn't he publicly stated that he will continue the war in Iraq, and perhaps even expand the number of troops we have on the ground there? Why support one pro-war candidate over another? Wouldn't you rather have the guy who believes the cause is just in charge - rather than the guys who uses the war to inflame the anti-war voters, uses the war for loitical posturing, undermines our leaders and troops, encourages the enemy, but nominally supports the war? The war is a done deal - why change the current Pres, nat'l security advisor, secretaries of defense, state and homeland security, in favor of a DIFFERENT group of pro-war leaders?

BTW, if you like gambling (apparently you guys do ) sportsbook.com has Kerry the underdog at 6-5 and Bush favored at 5-7. Hope they're right.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 10/31/04 09:35 PM
Bush has no exit strategy for this war and the feeling here is he is more likely to go after another country when and if this ever ends. Kerry wants to get help from other countries and is the more likely canidate of the two to try to plan on a way to come to an ending over there and get out.

I know this has been explained here before, but the people on the Bush side of things seem to ignore it and spout the rehtoric from their side instead.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 11/01/04 02:27 AM
In reply to:

Why are all the anti-war people voting for Kerry? Hasn't he publicly stated that he will continue the war in Iraq, and perhaps even expand the number of troops we have on the ground there?




Kerry has no choice but to continue the war. To pull out now would prove disastrous in Iraq. Bush got us into this mess, but quite frankly I don't trust him to get us out of it. And frankly putting more troops on the ground makes sense in speeding up the process of training Iraqis and hastening our exit.

In reply to:

Why support one pro-war candidate over another? Wouldn't you rather have the guy who believes the cause is just in charge - rather than the guys who uses the war to inflame the anti-war voters, uses the war for loitical posturing, undermines our leaders and troops, encourages the enemy, but nominally supports the war? The war is a done deal - why change the current Pres, nat'l security advisor, secretaries of defense, state and homeland security, in favor of a DIFFERENT group of pro-war leaders?




Why change? Because, for one, we believe the current president and his administration have made a lot of very big mistakes in dealing with this war, and in turn have refused to acknowledge those mistakes or opposing opinions, even when coming from highly knowledgable people. The war on terror is legitimate. The war in Iraq was not, in the eyes of many Americans, the next logical step in the war on terror. The administration used bad information to send our men and women to die and that war has cost us $200 BILLION.

Not only is it clear that the administration vastly underestimated the costs of this war, they also vastly underestimated just how hard this war would be to win. Beforehand they were predicting a 60 day war. Well over a year and a half later we're still there. Arguments from military brass that stated we needed more troops were largely ignored. Fairly extreme torture tactics (by Western standards) were approved by high-ranking officials for use on Iraqis, for little more than intimidation purposes. And to top it all off, Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorists more than it ever was before. A seemingly forgotten aim of terrorism is to invite retribution, because it will rally the indigenous people to your cause. LOTS of scholars and military experts were speaking out on this well before the US went into Iraq.

I could go on - and that's only dealing with Iraq! Don't get me started on domestic issues... What it boils down to for me is this: this administration has been so pigheaded in it's stubborness, so unwilling to listen to opposing opinions, has made some very big mistakes, admitted so few of them, and been so disdainful of open communication with it's public (they're even deleting transcripts from the official White House website that contain quotes that aren't in line with their "vision") that I feel it absolutely necessary to change.

Is Kerry absolutely the best candidate for the job? No. But I have no doubt in my mind that he is better than Bush.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/01/04 06:59 AM
In reply to:

I was simply stating that for a politician to undermine the war effort of his own country - for his own selfish political gain (and not because he is ideologically opposed to the war) - is unAmerican. Period.


Since when are you the authority on what is American?

You want to talk about doing things for selfish political gain? Look at Bush/Roves smear tactics against McCain in the 2000 primaries. There is absolutely no contest here.

I just finished watching a Frontline episode that had been on my TiVo for a few weeks called "The Choice." It's an excellent and completely neutral documentary about both Bush and Kerry. It reinforced my choice for President, as I'm sure it would reinforce your choice, as well.

The reasons I am voting for Kerry mesh very well with the reasons I'm voting against Bush.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/01/04 02:46 PM
In reply to:

Look at Bush/Roves smear tactics against McCain in the 2000 primaries



speaking of mccain.. did anyone see the TV funhouse cartoon on saturday night live this weekend? it showed mccain having to introduce dubya at a campaign rally, and how much torture he has to go thru to do so. it was pretty dang funny. they might play it again tonight on the SNL primetime special on NBC. look for it.. worth a good laugh.

BTW- i saw tim russert on TV this morning, and he seemed genuinely clueless about the outcome of the election. he had almost a boyish excitement, in the prospect of watching history happen right before him. it was obvious that he was not willing to call a winner.

my prediction... kerry takes florida and ohio, and maybe pennsylvania, and its over...

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/01/04 07:59 PM
Unfortunately, today is an extremely busy day for me at work - so I may not be able to get around to all y'all, but I'm sure as hell gonna try.

pmb, you're not disputing that Kerry has used specific events related to the war to criticize Bush, without regard to the effects such criticism has had on the war effort or the security of our troops, but you assert that I cannot deem such tactics unAmerican? Would "unpatriotic" be better? "disingenuous"? "counter-productive"? You pick the word, but Kerry's words and actions do not support his fellow Americans.

Whatever the Bush campaign did to unfairly smear McCain (my choice for Pres in the 2000 primary, btw ) may qualify as low, cheap, dirty, etc..., but it is not in the same league with what the Kerry campaign and leftist analysts have done regarding the war. If Bush & Co wanted to use the Iraq war like the Kerry campaign, they could. How about this:

Yesterday's carbombing that killed 8-9 US Marines (our fellow Americans) was a direct result of Kerry embracing the IAEA story regarding the missing 377 tons of explosives. Kerry ran a 30 second spot slamming Bush over the missing explosives and the next day insurgents detonated a truly massive carbomb far beyond the scale of previous carbombs. Clearly the intent was to help substantiate Kerry's attacks on Bush. If Kerry (and his lackeys in the media) hadn't politicized the missing explosives, the bombing would not have happened and our boys would be alive at this moment. I don't have any facts to support this theory, but a lack of factual evidence hasn't seemed to stop the Kerry campaign from making similar accusations against Bush.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/01/04 08:24 PM
"Kerry has no choice but to continue the war. To pull out now would prove disastrous in Iraq. Bush got us into this mess, but quite frankly I don't trust him to get us out of it. And frankly putting more troops on the ground makes sense in speeding up the process of training Iraqis and hastening our exit."

The military is running the war in Iraq, not Bush. I think it's been a pretty stunning success, but I would hope that the commander-in-chief would pull us out of any war he thought was a "mistake". It would be more of a mistake to continue to fight such a war than to pullout. The entire Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorists, why not return Iraq to that fold if you feel the war is a mistake?

"Why change? Because, for one, we believe the current president and his administration have made a lot of very big mistakes in dealing with this war, and in turn have refused to acknowledge those mistakes or opposing opinions, even when coming from highly knowledgable people. The war on terror is legitimate. The war in Iraq was not, in the eyes of many Americans, the next logical step in the war on terror. The administration used bad information to send our men and women to die and that war has cost us $200 BILLION."

It is clear you think the war was a mistake, but what "very big mistakes" has the administration made? They have control of most of the country, the gov't, the oil fields, etc...? The Iraqi people are enlisting en masse in the new armed forces to regain sovereignty. What experts have more credibility than the experts prosecuting the war? Certainly not Clark (he's a politician!) or Bremer (he's a civilian!).

Once again, if the real reason to prefer Kerry over Bush is on domestic issues, then that should be the subject of debate, and the subject of Kerry's campaign.

F***ing kids are here - gotta go.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/01/04 08:44 PM
In reply to:

Yesterday's carbombing that killed 8-9 US Marines (our fellow Americans) was a direct result of Kerry embracing the IAEA story regarding the missing 377 tons of explosives. [snip] If Kerry (and his lackeys in the media) hadn't politicized the missing explosives, the bombing would not have happened and our boys would be alive at this moment. I don't have any facts to support this theory, but a lack of factual evidence hasn't seemed to stop the Kerry campaign from making similar accusations against Bush.


I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush campaign DID say exactly that. After all, the are constantly on the lookout for scapegoats and other people to take the blame for their lack of detail-oriented planning.

Are you saying this latest mistake (one which Giuliani blames our troops for, BTW) should not have been publicized, or that it is not an obvious campaign issue for Kerry to stress? What "lack fo factual evidence" are you referring to in regards to Kerry's campaign attacks on Bush? I'm not saying none exists -- both campaign have used poetic license -- I'd just like an example

By your choice of language, you've obviously fallen into the trap of dehumanizing/de-Americanizing Kerry and his supporters. "Kerry's media lackey's" is just the latest example. I know you like the support the sitting president, so I'll seriously feel for you if Kerry wins: you'll need to do some serious mental gymnastics to escape from the ideological hole you've wedged yourself into.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/01/04 09:03 PM
In reply to:

The military is running the war in Iraq, not Bush.


Hmmmm. Are you aware that since Vietnam, Donald Rumsfeld has been on a crusade to put more and more control of the military into civilian (read his) hands, in effect taking decisions out of the hands of the high-up brass? Bush's cabinet has more control of the military than you might think.

Check out this timeline from Frontline: Rumsfeld's War. Here are some quotes:

1975 - 1977: Much of what Rumsfeld is fighting for in his first term as secretary of defense mirrors his efforts in the George W. Bush administration 25 years later. According to Bob Woodward, Rumsfeld's drive for total control when he would return to the office decades later "stemmed from his experience and deep frustration" with his first posting at Defense. "Rumsfeld was secretary for only 14 months…. Only 44 at the time, he had found the Pentagon difficult and almost unmanageable." In an interview with Woodward years later, Rumsfeld will tell him that the job of secretary of defense in the 1970s was too "ambiguous" because there is only "a thin layer of civilian control" at the Pentagon. When Rumsfeld returns to the Pentagon in 2001, he will make sure that this is no longer true.

2001: Immediately after taking office, Rumsfeld begins to reassert civilian control over the Pentagon, a department that had been run by the uniform military in recent years. "It was a pretty tough process," says Thomas Ricks, "A lot of friction in those first months, with Rumsfeld saying, 'No, I don't think you heard me clearly. I'm the boss. I want to do it this way'." He undertakes an exhaustive review of all of the military's contingency plans and personally interviews candidates for promotion at the highest levels. Says Ricks, "[There was] a lot of resentment of that in the military."
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 03:35 AM
"I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush campaign DID say exactly that. After all, the are constantly on the lookout for scapegoats and other people to take the blame for their lack of detail-oriented planning."

You really believe that? I'm guessing not. What scapegoats? What lack of planning? Ask the Russians how well we planned in Afghanistan. Ask the Iranians how well we planned in Iraq. If Rumsfeld is responsible for the BRILLIANT military successes in these two campaigns then he needs to stay put (Kerry said the winning of the war in Iraq was "brilliant", too, didn't he? ).

Who is Guliani in the Presidential race? Regardless, he was stating that for Kerry to criticize the POTENTIAL loss of those munitions, it is actually a critique of the military and not Bush. Would you also blame Bush for the wrong turn Jessica Lynch and her convoy took? Maybe he should have given them a call to make sure they knew where they were going? Blame FDR for the landing craft operators on D-Day who dropped their soldiers in 20 feet of water? "FDR planned for the invasion, but not the swim to shore?"

You CANNOT deny that the media has given Kerry favorable treatment, and simultaneously blasted Bush for his entire term. You can change the subject if you like, but to the extent that the media affects public opinion (which is considerable) this race has been influenced by the powers that be at the HQs of our newspapers, TV stations, and magazines. Freedom of the press or cynical manipulation of public opinion? IMO, it's the latter. If you respect democracy, the public should simply be informed to make their own decisions.

"I know you like the support the sitting president, so I'll seriously feel for you if Kerry wins: you'll need to do some serious mental gymnastics to escape from the ideological hole you've wedged yourself into."

If Kerry wins he will be judged by what he does in office and likely not by how he got there.

As a teacher I do feel it necessary to send kids the message that their country is great, their political tradition rich and unique, and their chances of personal success high. What other message would you want the teachers of your son to send? I have to be positive. The commies at Berkeley may feel cute ripping America apart, but I'm more interested in helping kids find a happy life in our society.

So, yeah, I will have to find something to like about Kerry if he gets elected. For starters I'm going to go place a big fat wager on him to win tomorrow. That way if Kerry wins, I'll win some dough... if Bush wins, we'll all win.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 03:57 AM
Well, the voting will be over in a few hours and someday, after the lawyers are done with the process, we'll know who the people elected president.

I'm curious to see whether the losing side can rise to the level of a loyal opposition.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 06:37 AM
In reply to:

The commies at Berkeley may feel cute ripping America apart...


There you go again with your labels and stereotypes. I happen to live and vote in Oakland, BTW.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 04:29 PM
I remember the days when people (you know who they are) said Bush is playing right into Osama's hands. Looks like the tape defies this rhetoric.

To be sure and in Big Will's defense, I've read much useless rhetoric from all sides. You can't pick and choose one little thing someone like Big Will said and denigrate him for cheapening the debate. If we could use this tactic, then I'd say pmbuko's cheap video of Bush achieves the same purpose. Just talk and have fun. Oh, and I've enjoyed everyone's comments here. I would like to participate more but I just don't have the time.
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 04:29 PM
labels? bwahahahahahhaha!
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 05:39 PM
It has been fun. BTW, I regret saying "the commies at Berkeley" - I should have said "the commies at every public university".
Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 05:46 PM
Big Will, Harold Bloom once said academia is "an island of repression in a sea of liberty". I can't explain it any better.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 05:52 PM
good morning big will!!

well, todays the day!! i will vote this afternoon when i get off work, but man, can you just feel the tension in the air.. its kinda scary.. everyone up here at work is just jabber-talkin and criss-crossing from desk to desk. most around here are bush supporters(go figure), but they all look very concerned. i fear that the two parties have put such a division in the country, that regardless of who wins, it will be hard to unify the concept of one america. these are hard battle lines, and they have dug the trench deep..

i hope you win some money on your 'bet'.. have a good day, and have some beers tonight.. it will help ease the pain..

bigjohn


Posted By: Lexxen Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 07:24 PM
Anyone here read Foucault at all? This thread made me think of his idea that as you tear down a power structure a new one is created because we cannot exist in a vaccume where there is no power structure and that this leads to a "hyper- and pessimistic-activisim " where even if you realise that you will never acheive the perfect power structure you still try to change it because it is worse to do nothing. (I use the word you to mean society in general, not a specific person)

So, some people like Bush, some people don't. Eventually he will no longer be in power and someone who is just as liked/hated will be in power, but we still have to have threads like this or we would all rot away in stagnation...

(note: this is a very basic interpertaion of Foucault so don't take my word for it -- read him yourself. Although, he is terribly borring...)

Also, I prefer a demoractic system where there are many parties -- I think that two (or even the 4 or 5 that we have in Canada) is not enough "sides" to represent everyone in a country. India, for example, has around 100 parties and it takes something like 6 weeks to count all the votes, but that way a larger percentage of the population is represented even if only through alliances in parliment... (I mean they could even have a party that represents the goatherder's union who probalby has different concerns than the sheepherders union...)

anyways, my two cents
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 09:03 PM
Nice try, bigjohn. The map will be all red late tonight.
I'm afraid I wasted my money betting on Kerry, but I'll still be toasting the Bush victory with some of that Jubleale from the Descheutes Brewery that Tom raves about (I haven't tried the Jubleale yet, hopefully it won't suck as badly as Kerry does).

Lexxen, those multi-party systems make people feel better represented, but I don't know if it creates a more affective gov't. Lots of politicking within the legislative body, no?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 09:10 PM
BTW- has anyone been able to get any sort of update as to how the polls are looking? i thought they might be giving some 'early' results, but i havent found any.. i guess the networks are scared to do so after the fiasco with last election.

please give any updates if you get them. mainly the swing states. ohio, florida, pennsylvania, wisconsin..

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 10:03 PM
They don't release early results anymore - don't want to hurt turnout.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 10:08 PM
makes sense..

OK then i will just wait and find out this evening with a cold beer and a plate full of BBQ..

beer, food, and politics.. could it get any better? does anyone know any strippers?

bigjohn




Posted By: mwc Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 10:30 PM
I'm gonna watch the election results on the Daly Show tonight. He has a two hour special starting at 9:00 on the comedy channel. I'll get the results and laugh my a$$ off at the same time.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/02/04 10:54 PM
Daily Show is awesome. I loved what he said on last night's show. He was speaking to the president elect -- whoever that's going to be. I'm paraphrasing:

"I'm a comedian who makes a living off making fun of tha absurdities of the government. Please, make my job really hard for the next 4 years."


Posted By: Lexxen Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 04:23 AM
BigWill:
I couldn't tell you if multi-party governments are better in any way, I just like the idea. I could see how the legislative process would take longer but it all depends on the way the legislative process works there... dunno.

Also, from what I understand, in Australia it is mandatory to vote -- that is defenatly a good idea, IMHO.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 01:04 PM
Why is mandatory voting a good idea? You can't enforce a mandatory research into the canidate period, so what keeps people from just going in and placing uninformed votes. You would just get that from the people that didn't want to vote. Is that any better then them not voting at all?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 02:09 PM
i will go ahead and call it.. even with some lawyer jumbling in ohio for the next few days by the kerry campaign, BUSH will prevail. i had already come to the conclusion that whoever pulled ohio, and either florida or wisconsin, would win. looks like bush has that well in hand. i finally threw in the towel around 12:30 last night, when most networks had bush at 269 electorial votes. BTW- the beer was EXTRA cold last night. we had a cold front move in and the temps were in the upper 30's with winds at 10-15 mph. i just left the beer on the back porch, no need for a fridge. and yes, it is official, hell is currently freezing over!!

bigjohn
Posted By: Lexxen Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 04:06 PM
Zarak: No-one is forced to actually vote for anyone, they can simply submit an empty ballot. The reason I think that manditory voting is better is that I think that if people are forced to vote anyways some of the people that would not have voted will decide to do at least some research into who they want to vote for. Certainly there are going to be some people who vote uninformed, but do you think that everyone who votes in The US or Canada is always informed?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 04:58 PM
In reply to:

do you think that everyone who votes in The US or Canada is always informed?



no, probably not, but at least they are compelled.. compelled enought to get up, and make time in their day to go vote because they want to. i think if it is made mandatory, voting will become like having to eat your peas, or clean your room. the concept of 'forcing' people to do something that they either dont want, or dont care to, will NEVER work in the US. if there is one thing i know, its that americans dont like being told that they HAVE to do something. its an interesting idea, but wont work at all.

but, what i did find interesting, is that i saw some deal that an effort is being made to make election day, a national holiday.. that way, you are off the whole day, and have NO excuse as to why you cant get to the polls and vote. i would love the paid free day off work, but i think it is a sad state of affairs that they feel the need to give us the day off, so our lazy a$$e$ will hopefully get off the couch and go do something that might change the course of history. americas lack of interest in the direction of its own government is baffling to me.. kinda sad actually!!

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 06:19 PM
I agree bigjohn. President Bush has Ohio in the bag. It's statistically impossible for Kerry to win at this point. He supposed to make his concession speech soon (if he hasn't already). This time, Bush won completely legitimately and unquestionably. The people have spoken.

... ...sigh.... ...

Let's make the best of the next 4 years.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 06:40 PM
i was discussing this with my buddy last night. hows this for a scary thought.

with kerry losing, that clears the way for hillary to run in 08. and i think she will. in fact, i will go so far as to say she will be the favorite.. then, we already know the republican party is NOT going to choose cheney, so then who? can you say, rudy guillani..... america loves this guy, and he will have the ability to swing usual democratic voting NY, to republican. plus, throw in the rest of new england, and a few other usual democratic strong holds, and its a done deal.

i dont know enought about rudy to get real critical, but i think he lacks the experince. being mayor of NY for 12 years, does not a president make. then again, being the wife a president doesnt qualify you either. plus, i still dont think the US as a whole, is ready to vote in a women president.

and the hits just keep on comin'!!

bigjohn


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 07:09 PM
Rudy is definitely not presidential material. And Hillary is not electable, either. Sorry to say it. Both of those people will probably run, but they won't be their partys' final choices.

But let's not start thinking about what happens in 4 years. How about tomorrow, January, next summer? You can bet your ass I'm going to be a vililant mo-fo.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 07:31 PM
Political quote-of-the-day:

"I went to the polls and all I got was this lousy President."

Some say that would apply if it went either way.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 08:58 PM
Absolutely goes both ways-I'm hearing rumors that both Ashcroft and Rumsfeld may be on their way out. Depending on cabinet appointments the administration could be a lot more palatable. Who will replace the Chief Justice? That's a thorny issue for me. This President is way too cozy with the religious right for my comfort.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 09:37 PM
I agree. The more and more I learned about the administration in the months leading up to, well, yesterday, the more I began to realize that President Bush was the most palatable guy there.

The Straussians (a.k.a. neo-conservatives) like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are who we have to worry about. They push the idea that America is the only force of good on the planet, and our destiny is to fight evil around the world. They blatantly lie about threat levels -- ample evidence exists that they did this in the past when they were trying to convince Reagan that the Soviet Union was trying to take over the world -- and use religion as a tool to sway the masses.

They do all this for one reason -- they think liberal ideas, and liberals in general are causing moral decay in America. Only a large, powerful enemy -- currently terrorists, formerly communists -- can unite the people into a homogeneous mass of double-plus-good Americans.

It's good to hear that Rumsfeld might be leaving, but I have no confidence that anyone with a different ideology will be allowed to take his place.


Yeah, I'm a bit pessimistic right now, but really, I'm hoping for the best. Give me a few days to get my spirits up.
Posted By: real80sman Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 09:40 PM
Well, I have completely avoided this thread all together, but this link was kind of cute. Hope I am not late to the punch line.


Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 09:46 PM
That's the first election-related thing I've laughed at since the election.

Thanks!
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 09:55 PM
I like Rudy, too, but I think McCain will be a shoo-in now that he has demonstrated his party loyalty by very actively campaigning for Bush. IMO, McCain would be unbeatable.

They say Rehnquist isn't going to retire. Are we assuming he's going to kick the bucket? My older brother is similarly concerned about the religous right. I don't see the threat personally.

I did see Barack Obama interviewed on Fox a few days ago. He did seem like a high quality individual - I liked him. I also liked that New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson, but neither of those guys - or Hillary - have any chance of defeating McCain.

Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 09:58 PM
LOL, you're nuts.

I don't think Rumsfeld is going anywhere. I would have to agree that Ashcroft seems like a strange fellow, though.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 09:58 PM
In reply to:

It's good to hear that Rumsfeld might be leaving



that is very good, if its true?

it was mentioned earlier in this thread, but i have a true concern for the manner in which he is trying to mold the military sectors of the government with civilian control. i didnt mention this before, cause i wanted to ask her if it was OK first, but i have a good friend who's uncle is the assistant secretary of the army, colonel les brownlee. when the sec of the army stepped down, general brownlee, who is a highly decorated officer in the army, stepped in to do the job with the intent that he would take over the position. rumsfeld moved in, and has tried to put 2 different civilians into that position, and bypassed colonel brownlee. both of those civilians resigned the position, leaving brownlee to still do the job, but only on an interm basis. despite the fact that he has full backing and support from both the house and senate, democrats and republicans alike, rumsfeld still refuses to appoint him to the secretary of the army position. and why? thats a good question.. once again, it boils down to rumsfeld's desire to breakdown the upper command of the military, and replace them with civilians that he can control, who have NO military experience what so ever.

and bush is no where to be found in this whole deal. to me, a perfect example of his 'passing the responsibilty' type attitude. he could do something about this, but its just easier to let rumsfeld take the heat.

bigjohn
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 10:41 PM
It takes a nuts person to see beyond the facade sometimes.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/03/04 11:38 PM
Best post-election political joke I've heard so far:

Hey John Kerry... why the long face?
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 12:56 AM
Bush wins.
The GOP gain three more seats in the Senate.
The GOP gain two more seats in the house.
11 states ban gay marriage.

I think I'm going to throw up...



Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 01:11 AM
Don't give up, spiff. Millions of Americans want true equality for every citizen. Just not enough millions.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 01:21 AM
We understand you pmbuko, the equality you're talking about is from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs. Keep the hope alive comrade.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 01:28 AM
I'm not sure I understand you.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 06:09 AM
Knock it off with the commy shtick, 2x6. Or have you suddenly gone right wing on us and want to discriminate against gays?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 06:54 AM
You spelled commie wrong.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 06:55 AM
Jeez. If you're going to back me up, at least spell commie and schtick right.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 07:35 AM
Ok, I'll be sure to be "vililant" in my spelling.


Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 08:21 PM
This made me chuckle...though I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the idea personally. What do I need to do to get this idea under way? Who do I need to call?



Posted By: Huffer Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 08:39 PM
Will the New Canada still be metric?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 09:27 PM
I saw a similar picture with the exact same boundaries, except the north was called "The United States of Canada" and the south was called "JesusLand"
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 09:53 PM
Being a simple rube from Jesusland I don't know how to do those fancy links, but this county by county disection of the Presidential election shows that Jesusland would encompass almost all of the current US (with the exception of coastal urban areas and Indian reservations):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Enjoy the next 12 years of Republican domination, comrades. (Meant in good humor of course).
Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 10:04 PM
Here is a direct link Will.Thats a whole lot of red.
Posted By: MarkSJohnson Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 10:11 PM
The interesting part is that if you click the "2000" tab to see the previous map, the colors are blue and something kinda like a burgundy. I guess in 2004, the red got even redder!
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 10:11 PM
Thanks wid. Beautiful sight ain't it?

Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 10:13 PM

Posted By: Riffman Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 10:14 PM
another map

sorry! ok, here's the other map (from Princeton)


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 10:33 PM
That makes me so, so, sad. Thanks for twisting the knife guys!
Posted By: player8 Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 10:36 PM
Is it just me or does it look like Arizona and Nevada have no counties compared to the other states. Texas and Oklahoma look like puzzles for crying out loud.
Posted By: sidvicious02 Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 10:41 PM
sounded like the Saskatchewan court (called Court of Queens Bench) was going to rule in favour of same-sex marriage today/tomorrow. Makes Sask the 7th (out of 10) provinces to do so.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/04/04 11:43 PM
spiffnme, this might cheer you up:

Dallas' new sheriff is an out lesbian
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics *DELETED* - 11/04/04 11:49 PM
Post deleted by pmbuko
Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 12:02 AM
In reply to:

I'm not as depressed anymore.




I'm glad your feeling better.I will say this Peter I do respect you and your opinons,and I do believe you are a good person as I do most who have debated their issuses here.
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 12:13 AM
In reply to:


That makes me so, so, sad. Thanks for twisting the knife guys!




OK thats just funny

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics *DELETED* - 11/05/04 12:20 AM
I deleted the post above because Riffman had already linked to the nicer, more gradiated map.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 12:30 AM
OK. Here's a juxtaposition for ya:

2004 Electoral Results, by State:




The Antebellum United States of America, circa 1860:





Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 01:11 AM
More wound-licking:

The Wall Street Journal points out, Bush's victory was "the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 02:40 PM
HAHA... nice map comparisions there peter.. pretty interesting stuff..

bigjohn
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 05:44 PM
How was this win more narrow than the win over Gore in 2000?

The 1860 map is supposed to show that today's Bush voters in the south are bigots? The actual reason for that juxtaposition is the southerners' perception that the Democratic Party represents urban residents, gays and minority interests more than those of rural and traditional America. And they're right.

By watching CNN and reading the NY Times articles that are reprinted in my local paper, it is clear to me that the Democrats have learned nothing from this election yet. Most are questioning what the Kerry campaign did "wrong", mainly in terms of election strategy and the attacks on the President, rather than looking to rein in the radical leftists in their party that dominate the headlines and provide easy targets for conservatives and moderates alike. Marxism, radical environmentalism, radical racial politics, atheism, increased taxation, etc... You expect normal people to vote for that?

The easiest way for democrats to win the Presidency would be to nominate a moderate southerner, like Clinton (Bill, not Hillary ).
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 06:21 PM
In reply to:

How was this win more narrow than the win over Gore in 2000?



the comment was "the narrowest win for a sitting president".. bush obviously didnt have the presidency in 2000. just a mis-read on your part, no biggie.

In reply to:

The 1860 map is supposed to show that today's Bush voters in the south are bigots?



no, but i think it points out the fact that the majority of republican voting states, still use the 'slave driving, good 'ole boy network' that was prevalent 140 years ago. its the backwords attitude that to keep one's self up, you gotta keep someone else down, and make sure to hook up all your buddies in the process. its just old, wrong thinking. but obviously, the republican party has embraced that section of the vote, and has made their directive clear. we will stay rich, and keep the poor, poor. and give all the billion dollar contract to all our old business partners. *pat on the back here*pat on the back there* everyones happy..

bigjohn




Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 06:37 PM
Thanks for the clarification, bigjohn. I know very well how you love to correct me.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 06:56 PM
1) Those county by county maps are very misleading. The election is not decided by land mass, it's decided by population.

2) in reponse to:

"rather than looking to rein in the radical leftists in their party that dominate the headlines and provide easy targets for conservatives and moderates alike. Marxism, radical environmentalism, radical racial politics, atheism, increased taxation, etc... You expect normal people to vote for that?"

Umm...yeah, 48% of America did, nearly 56 million people. More people voted for Lefty Kerry than voted for Reagan in 1980.


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 06:59 PM
In reply to:

I know very well how you love to correct me



no i dont

i would love to correct the fact that you are a republican, but i think thats an impossible correction to make.

i aint got nothin but love for ya bigwill. i am all about conversation, argument, and constructive criticism. all this has just been entertaining and informative. i never intended any personal attacks, nor do i feel i ever received any.

bigjohn
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 07:14 PM
"no, but i think it points out the fact that the majority of republican voting states, still use the 'slave driving, good 'ole boy network' that was prevalent 140 years ago. its the backwords attitude that to keep one's self up, you gotta keep someone else down, and make sure to hook up all your buddies in the process. its just old, wrong thinking. but obviously, the republican party has embraced that section of the vote, and has made their directive clear. we will stay rich, and keep the poor, poor. and give all the billion dollar contract to all our old business partners. *pat on the back here*pat on the back there* everyones happy.."

Man....I've tried very hard to cease posting on this thread (mostly to save my own sanity), but I have to chime in after these comments. I don't even know where to start. You guys talk about stereotypes and labels like they're the primary weapons of conservatives and then you go ahead and unleash a line of offensive crap like this?

I have said on numerous occasions that I used to live in the North and used to be a bleeding heart liberal (not a label, a reality). I used to hold the highest disdain for the South based upon stereotypes of hooded toothless wonders trying to keep us in the dark ages. Then, in a purposeful attempt to insert myself into something completely out of the box, I went to grad school in Nashville, the epicenter of the South in my mind.

The problem w/ stereotypes is that they are rarely indicative of reality. They have some basis either in isolated instances or in history, but they're rarely completely accurate. This is what I found when I got down here. Yes, I found a more religious-based mentality, which I have never gotten fully used to. But, what I didn't find is metropolitan areas rampant w/ gun-toting Jethros blazing up the crosses and terrorizing the blacks. Yes, there are your fair share of red-necks, but no more than the bubbas up North. It's all a bunch of insensitive hype created by hateful and ignorant people who are so damn idealistic that they lack a solid grasp on reality.

You (and I in the past) hold Liberals up on this elite pedestal from which you look down on the ignorant church-going evil conservatives. The problem is that you are the ones being ignorant and close-minded. Has it occured to you that your party isn't comprised of fully educated "enlightened" people? Has it occured to you that a significant portion of your base are uneducated (maybe poor) people that don't give a crap about the issues, except for what the government is going to give them?...what they are entitled to? Your boy Kerry is the pinnacle of this ignorance and condescension and it bit him in the a$$. He sat up in his multi-million dollar personal jet and tried to act like he represented the common man and it didn't sell, except to those sheep who heard only "blah blah blah money for me blah blah blah keeping me down blah blah blah evil conservatives blah blah blah money for me".

My suggestion is that you might want to do a little soul-searching about this election and what it means to you and your party. If anything, this election has proven that the average Joe worker isn't going to bite on this class warfare drivel. Your party will have to reevaluate it's view of the "average middle-class worker" if it's ever going to get a grip on sub-urban and rural America....or even urban America. This type of rhetoric is not going to cut it.

Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 07:44 PM
In reply to:

Has it occured to you that your party isn't comprised of fully educated "enlightened" people?



you just explained george w, to a tee.

maybe what i said was an 'exaggerated' stereotype, but it is still a valid description. but i see where you are coming from, and i agree with some of your points.

and i couldnt agree more with your comments on kerry. i kinda knew this race was doomed from the get-go. they gave us a horrible candidate, and an inexperienced vice candidate. he parades as the 'underdog' yet he has never been the underdog his entire life. regardless of all that, it still goes to show how bad the american public is and was willing to make a change from the last 4 years. bush won, i aint trying to change that, but it should send up some danger signals to republicans. he barely squeaked it out, and look at who he was running against. imagine if the democrats would have got their $hit together 12 months ago, and given us someone worth voting for.. and why they didnt, is the biggest reason this election was lost. the republicans didnt win, the democrats were stupid enought to give it away.

bigjohn
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 08:47 PM
Glass half full or half empty?

Perhaps you should see this in a different light. Instead of seeing this as a red flag, consider that the Republicans might see this as a positive that he won the election even in the environment where he had eroded his base w/ the mess in Iraq. I for one was surprised that he won. His supporters rallied, but I did fear that Iraq was going to be his downfall. Just think how much he might have pulverized Kerry had the war in Iraq been going smoother.

...just an alternative viewpoint. I think that they realize that there is a disconnect between the Republicans and the Left. However, I don't think that they have a clue how to bridge that gap. What I was elluding to before is that the Democrats have an even larger problem than trying to gain traction w/ those right of center. Their problem is the erosion that we're seeing amongst their own base. I have not stats readily available, but I believe that they are seeing some losses on all fronts (women, hispanics, blacks, etc). This I would attribute partially to their continued emphasis on the "oppressed middle/lower class" and the class warfare. Not everyone in the Democratic party is poor, downtrodden, and oppressed. Not everyone in the party is a victim waiting on the edge of their seats for the great white government savior to make their lives better. Until they get off that extreme Left tangent, I don't see them rebuilding that base or gaining any penetration outside of urban areas.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/05/04 09:34 PM
A while ago I posted a link about the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. This wasn't aired in the US (unless you get BBC2). I found all 3 episodes online and downloaded them. The documentary makes a pretty good case against the neo-cons and how they have used their unique position of power to distort facts and to use fear in order to push their agenda and their own vision of our destiny as a country.

I'd like to share the episodes with you so you can make your own conclusions. Each episode is an hour long, so the file sizes are pretty large. If you'd like me to put them all on a DVD-R for you, I'm willing to do so. Just PM me.

The first 2 episodes require the latest version of the DivX codec, available here.

Episode 1: Baby It's Cold Outside - 380mb
Episode 2: The Phantom Victory - 344mb
Episode 3: The Shadow in the Cave - 586mb
Posted By: INANE Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 01:35 AM
To me this election came down to two kinds of ppl (mainly).

Those that had such a dislike for GW that it became anyone but him. These ppl obviously found something in the way he spoke and of course his decisions that they didn't trust him and plain hated the guy.

The other half of ppl could not have been more opposite. They actually liked the guy to the first groups dismay. They also trusted him and believe in the fight he has undertaken to protect us all.

Everything I've read, seen, friends and other ppl I've talked to have lead me to this conclusion. Obviously I am in the second group but I have friends that are in the first. I really think thats what it mainly came down to. Perception and beliefs.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 02:10 AM
"1) Those county by county maps are very misleading. The election is not decided by land mass, it's decided by population."

I don't think they're misleading at all. We know there are large concentrations of people in urban areas. They vote for the left for a number of reasons.

But that is only one community of voters. Outside of that community are huge numbers of smaller communities that are clinging to traditional values. They have been under attack from liberals and judicial activists for 40 years, yet they turned out big time in this last election.

BTW, what qualifies the people of these large, but isolated, urban communities to legislate whether bigjohn's community can say a prayer before a high school football game? I'm an atheist, but wtf! give allow people the ability to determine the values of their own communities.

Would you like it if the folks in the IE wanted the gov't to restrict gay public displays of affection in west LA? I'm guessing you would politely tell us to mind our own business, eh?


Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 06:45 AM
Need I remind you that 11 states just ammended their constitutions to prevent me from ever getting married in their states? If that's not the small red communities dictating what I can or can't do, what is?


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 06:16 PM
In reply to:

legislate whether bigjohn's community can say a prayer before a high school football game?




our school district chooses to have what they call, "a moment of silence for private reflection". and the guy over the P.A. even says, "please use this time to reflect on the players, the students, your family and friends, and those sitting amongst you in the stadium". i kid you not, its the funniest thing in the world. a few weeks back while at a game, during our 'reflection' time, i heard a lady about three rows back ask, "didnt they used to call this prayer?"

the loopholes that we have to go through, just to have a prayer at a football game is ridiculious. this issue has left me confused and baffled for years.

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 06:28 PM
Spiff... It has been a while. My gay cousin and I have come up with our "wish list" for everyone.

Get the government completely out of the marriage business. How ?

1. Abolish the current tax code completely and replace it with a National sales tax. Now there is no more marriage penalty, no more hiding income (as a side note, the Kerry family had a net tax rate of 12 % ... pretty good for someone making $5 mill per year NET). And yes, plenty of super-rich Republicans pay the same low rate.

When you do this, you get rid of favorable rules for married people... etc...

2. Allow ANYONE the option of Private Social Security ... when you turn 67, ALL that money you put in is yours, and can be given to anyone you want.

3. Eliminate Estate taxes. Again, having the ability to give moneys to anyone you want works.

NOW... with these three major policy changes, Marriage becomes a religious decision. Anyone could then join a church which DOES allow Gay marriage, and everyone is happy.

Plus, we get to tax drug dealers, prostitutes, and the super-rich no longer get to make 7% TAX FREE on their money...

By the way, the National Sales tax has a built in credit for the less well off to ensure they pay nothing in taxes, and EVERYTHING they earn, they keep.
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 07:12 PM
Spiff. I have avoided this thread, but I've got to comment about Ohio's passage of State Issue 1. It read:

Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

I voted against this Issue, and am appalled, and embarrassed, not only that it passed, but passed resoundingly.

This editorial from the Cincinnati Enquirer exlains it prefectly.

Why we are opposed to Ohio Issue 1 - Editorial

Ohio state Issue 1 is an unnecessary attempt to use the state constitution to ban something already prohibited by law. It would restrict the state's ability to attract new business and new employees and could interfere with the benefits employers offer employees. We oppose its passage.

Billed as an amendment to protect the concept that marriage is between one man and one woman, Issue 1 is poorly written and overly broad. It would go far beyond prohibiting same-sex marriage, opening a Pandora's box of potential litigation over the legal status of all sorts of relationships.

The ballot language forbids the state or any of its political subdivisions from recognizing unmarried relationships that intend "to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." Gov. Bob Taft, who came out against the amendment Tuesday, said that ambiguous sentence could have as many interpretations "as there are judges in the state of Ohio." He's right. If passed, the amendment could have consequences for any two people living together, no matter what their relationship might be.

Sens. Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, and Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro join Taft in opposing the amendment. Several of the state's largest employers have come out against it, including Nationwide Insurance and The Limited Group. AARP is opposed, as is Ohio State University, the League of Women Voters and the AFL-CIO.

Ohio already has a law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed last February.

The real impact of Issue 1 would be on people in relationships that are legal under DOMA. This includes people who live together, but choose not to marry for any number of reasons. Issue 1 could prevent them from being able to give each other legal control over their health care, pension benefits or other assets. Public employers could not offer family health insurance benefits to those who are not in traditional families.

Ohio should be working to develop a reputation that is open and welcoming. We want to be able to attract as diverse and talented a work force as possible. Issue 1 closes a door on those efforts.


What can I say. The passage of this issue leaves me speechless. It brings into question the competence of the electorate in general.



Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 07:42 PM
Jack - This topic is just one of thousands in which the government has gotten involved, much to the detriment of our freedoms.

Most of the electorate you mention spends from January 1 until May 1 to pay his or her taxes. Then we have to pay the rent, car payment, food ... etc... how much time do you think the "stupid people" have to research each candidate and bill ? Or to care what goes on with other people's lives ?

Like it or not, All these groups go after things the wrong way. Everyone is interested in HIS own problem, and not those of others.

When you try telling the family of 5 that they need to worry about Spiff's marital status, or the fact that I have to spend $150,000 re-doing the drainage around my dealership because the local government, which is a different set of nit wits than we had three years ago, changed the laws that I JUST complied with... They just don't care.

Until we Americans QUIT trying to get the government to control what we as INDIVIDUALS deem important, we will get more of this. Had the government not co-opted a religious item (marriage), this would not matter.

The government controls us by controlling our money. Get married ? Here is a tax break (govt. controlling behavior). Have a kid ? Here is a tax break (govt. controlling behavior). Make $5 million running a business ? Send us 40%. Make $5 million in a Municipal Bond ? OOPS... YOU get to keep it ALL.

Again, take the three steps I outlined above, and WATCH the government's role diminish for EVERYONE. This means everyone is more FREE.

By the way ... Pass all these things, and if Spiff and his Sig Other get married in THEIR church, I will be happy to attend. And if they HAVE no church (due to their beliefs), but want to have a private ceremony, it is none of my business.

I would still go to the party, if invited...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 08:31 PM
Nice to see Jack and craigsub back in the politics thread.

There is an article in the Constitution (Article VI?) that states states must acknowledge the laws of other states. Gay marriages performed legally in Massachussetts, Hawaii or wherever, will have validity in every other state - regardless of varying state laws - according to the Constitution. I'm not sure how that will shake out in the real world, however.

I have to agree with craigsub and the Libertarians about all this. The ACLU-types want the gov't to legislate their values and ditto for the homophobic conservatives. As VP Cheney said, freedom means freedom for everybody. We need to let communities be free to live the way they see fit. If that means spiff and Roger can't have a wedding ceremony in Jones County, Mississippi, then that is fine. If it means the homophobes can't legislate their morality in West Hollywood, then fine.
To each his own, I say. Plenty of room for us all to find our places.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 09:34 PM
I can see your point, BigWill, but this plops society right back into the 'separate but equal' conundrum. The whole idea that a citizen's specific rights are tied to a geographical region is flawed, and would never endure the test of time.

A ban on gay marriage is discrimination based on an aspect of a person's identity, e.g. skin color, nationality, sexual orientation. On the simplest level, it is no different than the ban on interracial marriage, which was deemed unconstitutional only as late as 1967 by the Supreme Court.

No doubt, there are still some communities in the U.S. which look upon interracial marriage as an abomination and against God's will. They have a right to hold those views, but they don't have a right to restrict others' freedoms because of them.

If you are free only because you meet certain qualifications -- e.g. Caucasian, straight, non-Muslim -- are you truly free, or just lucky?
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/06/04 09:52 PM
And I understand your angst PM ... But I have to ask, Why is gay marriage so important ?

Gay marriage, straight marriage, Bigamy ... NONE should never even appear in government. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution. The government being involved in subsidizing ITS version of marriage would be like government having an official, sanctioned prayer.

There should be NO such thing as government marriage licenses. THAT is the problem, not these amendments.

And it all gets back to money. If you eliminate all the government's control of money by behaving the way they want us to, ALL of these problems go away.

For example, take a person who detests the mere idea of EVER marrying, Why should THEY not have the "right" to leave their estate and Social Security to whomever they desire.

Again, look at the elimination of the IRS, Estate Taxes, and ANY government licensing of marriage, and Spiff can marry as a gay in any church he desires, and HE gets the choice to do with HIS money and life as HE sees fit.

So does Jack as a single man ...

Personally, I am for more freedom for EVERYONE.


Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 03:40 AM
Peter is right, "civil unions" for gays and lesbians is going back to the idea of separate but equal. Which the courts have already ruled, (and history has proven) is anything but equal.

I also agree that the best solution to this issue is to remove the government from the issue of marriage all together. The fact is marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, and the government has no place being involved. Tax-wise or otherwise.

The problem is that's a MUCH harder sell to the American public. Look at the resistance the gay community has just trying to get the right to marry. Imagine the outrage if what we were proposing was the end of state sanctioned marriage all together for everyone! We'd be demonized beyond all belief.

Whether or not it's the best solution or not, the only feasible way for gay and lesbian couples to have the same rights as straight couples is to allow us to marry.


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 04:04 AM
Actually Spiff... Once the whole IRS/Estate/Social Security thing got handled... I think you would be pleasantly surprised when people found that marrying was no longer a govt. function, that they would WELCOME the idea of marriage being a true union as the couple wanted... not as some silly law.

Perhaps someday...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 05:06 AM
spiff, I read the following on some other forum:

Those of us on the left are not telling you red-staters to do a god damn thing. You are the ones telling us that we can't marry who we want, we have to fight your war in Iraq, we have to give our money to your churches though "faith based" programs, and that we have to run a huge debt, which we, in the blue states, paying the vast majority of taxes must make good on. You are the ones telling us that we can't get an abortion. The federal government is not an instrument to advance your religion -- it belongs to all citizens of this country. America was not founded on "christian values." It was founded on enlightenment values, as anyone who has read a decent amount of U.S. history would find obvious.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 05:58 AM
That post reminds me why I quit frequenting here. Hatred is so sad...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 06:25 AM
woe is me
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 07:10 AM
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
-- James Madison, 1785 (context)
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 08:57 AM
Did I miss something? Where's the hatred?


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 01:58 PM
Spiff, PM is dripping hatred... and has no interest in anything someone from the conservative side has to say. Look at the absolute NASTY post/quote "from another forum". PM - You might try being civil, I consider you an American as rights, not a "Blue" a$$hole that needs publicly assaulted.

Rather than actually think for a minute about the ideas I suggested, they are summarily dismissed as impossible (not to be mean to you, but the Gay marriage bans passed in 100% of the "blue" states, so THAT idea is not working) ...

Until Americans start working towards freedoms for everyone, not much will happen.

And Spiff, If the Gay community WERE to come out for the things I proposed (they were not my ideas, by the way, people as far left as Jerry Brown and as far right as Pat Buchanan have suggested these ideas) , you would see a LANDSIDE of those agreeing with you. Ironically, where you would see the most resistance is from the left, though with the support of the gay community, it would have a groundswell.

I picture an America where people actually DO mind his/her own business, where people ARE given economic freedoms in a MACRO way, not by another piecemeal law, and where the government is LESS involved in our lives.

I have already petitioned Pres. Bush to look hard at these items, and believe me, let 40 million democrats start screaming (nicely) the same thing... "Scrap the IRS and income tax, give us a National Salest Tax instead, let ME control my OWN Social Security moneys, and eliminate the estate tax" ... and WATCH how fast it passes.

This would be good for Spiff, PM, Jack, Craig... EVERYONE.

Peace -

C
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 04:48 PM
craig,

There was no hatred in my post from another forum. Perhaps I should have included the context, in which a red-stater accused a blue-stater of trying to impose his will upon other people. Whatever hatred you see is in your own eye.

As for me having no interest in hearing what conservatives have to say (read: you), that's simply untrue. While I honestly can't say I missed your presence in this thread -- I did miss it in the other threads -- that has nothing to do with the content of your message, but everything to do with its delivery. I'm probably guilty of the same.

And did I say anything at all about the validity of your suggestions re marriage? No. Does that mean I dismissed them? No. They are great ideas, but so is shrinking governement and removing and and all corporate control of it. Do I think that's going to happen any time soon? I don't think so. There's a big difference between what's possible and what's right. The way the system is set up right now, the most practical way of ensuring people's rights is by guaranteeing them through amendments. That's how our country works. I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 06:17 PM
PM - I will accept your explanation that what you posted was a response to another post ... Though how I was supposed to know that is a challenge...

As for what is possible... at one time, the mere thought of America was impossible. Some exceptional men made it a possible thing. The only thing preventing us from becoming more free again is ourselves.

Everytime anyone, whether "conservative" or "liberal" rejoices in someone else losing a "right", WE allow the government to control us more ...

Regardless of one's political point of view, we have even seen the roll back of SOME government control in the last ten years. In 1998, It was passed by a Republican congress and signed by a Democratic president that the burden of proof in Tax cases would be on the government, not the citizen. One of our basic freedoms is "innocent until proven guilty", yet, from 1950 until 1998, when it came to the IRS, you were "guilty until proven innocent".

That was a major first step towards getting this freedom, and people laughed when it was first proposed, in 1995, that we eliminate that concept... "guilty until proven innocent".

For some interesting reading, go to Fairtax.org ... It is an already existing group which seeks the precise smaller government we all desire. It also explains in detail how the low wage earners are protected by this proposal... there are no taxes paid under this concept by people up to the poverty level.

And when a drug dealer buys a $1,000,000 boat, HE pays $230,000 in taxes....

It would be fun to have a few beers and talk about ALL the benefits of this...


Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 06:48 PM
On the surface I like the idea of a national sales tax, yet I don't know enough about the concept to back it yet. Tell me more.

How do low income family become exempt? What kind of rate are we talking? 23%, flat across the board for everyone and everything?


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 07:15 PM
Take a family of four making $35,000 per year. They would get a $3600 "prebate" from the federal government, plus they pay no FICA or Income Taxes. Under the current system, they pay a total of $8500 including income taxes and Total FICA... (this includes the employer's share - the hidden tax people don't see.) ...

This means, under the current system, they have a net of $26,500 to spend on the family. To keep this simple, I won't put State and local taxes into the equation.

Under the National Sales Tax system, let's say they spend the entire $26,500 ... They would have a tax bill of $6095 ... or they would spend $32,595. When you add the household $3600 "prebate", they made a total of $38,600. This family would have ($38,600 - $32,595) $6005 MORE in REAL NET income.

NOW ... Take a "superrich" individual who sold his DotCom biz in 2000 for $100 million, and has $50 million in Tax Free muni-bonds paying 7% (WE cannot get this yield, but Mark Cuban can, bless his heart) ... Today, that person pays NOTHING in taxes on $3.5 million in income. NOW... if he spends $3,000,000 on yachts and Ferraris, he pays $690,000 in taxes...

Yes, It is a Flat 23% rate, with each household receiving a $3600 "prebate" ... and there is already a bill pending in Congress.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 08:04 PM
We can only hope that the super-rich, corporate CEO club doesn't lobby against it. Oh please oh please oh please.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 08:16 PM
I thought the Nat'l Sales Tax looked like a bad deal, but I dunno now - it can't be any worse than the current system.

Something to consider: sales taxes generally hurt economic activity. With a tax of 23% on purchases, I may be more disinclined to buy stuff. Economic activity/growth is what drives our prosperity and fills the gov'ts coffers. If people stop buying stuff the economy will contract.

Back to gay marriage and how the Democrats can appeal to AMERICAN voters again?

"Whether or not it's the best solution or not, the only feasible way for gay and lesbian couples to have the same rights as straight couples is to allow us to marry."

If a compromise such as civil unions is not acceptable to you, spiff, I think your cause is doomed. If I remember right even the voters here in California are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriages. Further, in Europe, where the citizens are apparently all enlightened and brilliant intellectuals , a couple countries allow only civil unions, right? If it ain't flying over there, how do you expect middle America to buy into it? Such social changes tend to take place over generations, not overnight through judicial rulings.

And just a reminder: "separate, but equal, is inherently unequal", and, "the separation of church and state", both come from Supreme Court rulings and are not phrases in the Constitution. With a different Supreme Court both of these principles could disappear.

BTW, I'm sure James Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers would not be supporters of today's ACLU.

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/07/04 08:19 PM
Actually, The Corporate world would LOVE this... the Idle rich may not, but show business how to reduce expenses, and most will be for it. But even the ones who don't support it won't defeat a groundswell of everyday people...

FairTax.Org has a GREAT slogan ... "Let's make April 15th just another day" ... and their TOP donor category is $125...
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 01:38 AM
I share BigWill's concern over the 23% sales tax. I realize in the long run it would save people money, but that 23% slap on everything you buy would certainly stifle consumer spending.


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 02:00 AM
Spiff... You would see an economic boom unlike any other in history. The person making $1000 per week would keep the WHOLE $1000 ... plus get another $75 from the Government.. Right now, they take home about $700 ... even if they spent the entire $700, their tax would be $161 ... totalling $861...leaving $214 more each WEEK in disposable income.

When people buy stuff, they look at the total cost versus what they have in the checkbook ...

BigWill, Chime in here, how would giving the average family earning $1000 per week an extra NET of $214 per WEEK HURT sales of goods and services ?
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 04:10 AM
I do see your point, but do you not see mine at all? It would be quite a radical change. Has something like this been proposed, or even done, on a state level? If so, what were the results?

Don't get me wrong cs, I actually like the idea.


Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 04:42 AM
I like the idea too, and I'll even go one further. I don't know that it is completely horrible if it does cut spending a bit. I think it is ridiculous how many people in this country have credit card debt, or in general are just over their heads in debt. Could this perhaps slow their spending some and make them a bit more responsible? Or perhaps these people are just hopeless and will continue to spend all they can no matter what.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 04:48 AM
It's the American way!
Posted By: JohnK Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 07:54 AM
Now that the election is over, I'll dare to venture into this thread, but only to make a clarifying point. Since taxation is one of the areas that I do, I'll point out that the FairTax proposal re-introduced last year as H.R. 25 contains a 23% sales tax calculated on a tax inclusive basis, which is a valid method of stating a tax, but which is sometimes misunderstood. State sales taxes are calculated on a tax exclusive basis, i.e. on the cost of the goods or services before the tax is applied. $100 purchased subject to a 23% tax inclusive rate doesn't result in a tax of $23, but rather one of about $29.90. The formula to convert the tax inclusive rate to the equivalent tax exclusive rate is [1/(1-.23)]-1, or about 29.9%, the tax exclusive rate equivalent to a 23% tax inclusive rate. In other words, of the total cost of $129.90 including tax, the $29.90 tax would be 23%.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 12:52 PM
OK, I'm not a pro on this topic of the Fairtax, but I've heard enough that I'm sold on the idea.....at bare minimum for the simplicity of it. Consumers will spend no matter what, especially if they have more money in their pockets.

As far as the concerns about it stifling consumer spending, I think that the counter-argument from advocates is that manufacturers and distributors pay a butt-load on corporate taxes right now, all of which is built into their pricing. If you remove those taxes, which is part of the plan, you will ease the financial pressure and the cost of doing businesses on those companies. One would naturally be concerned that they would just pocket these added funds and screw the consumer. The counter to that is two-fold based upon our capitalist system. First, if they do choose not to reduce their pricing, then the further desire for more wealth is probably going to drive those businesses to expand operations, ie more jobs and $ into workers pockets. The more plausible outcome will be that the competition in the marketplace will force them to reduce their prices accordingly in order to maintain/gain market-share. If you have five businesses providing the same service/product and they see a 20% drop in their expenses, one of them will undoubtedly drop their prices accordingly in order to gain an edge w/ our savvy consumers. In order to compete, the rest of them will follow suit. The winner is the consumer.

In theory, this reduction in corporate taxes would result in lower costs on goods purchases. That being the case, we'll have no income tax (5 months of pay not going to taxes) and cost of goods purchased will adjust to relieve the pain of increased sales tax. You have a wash on the taxes, but a net gain resulting from the reduced pricing. Sounds damn good to me. The only people that are screwed in this is the IRS......and I say screw them!!!!
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 03:44 PM
Don't forget about all those tax prep services, like H&R Block, that would go out of business, too.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 05:10 PM
I suppose the disincentive to buy created by a higher sales tax may be offset by higher incomes and possibly lower prices. I don't know if it will work, or be fair, but putting the IRS out of business sounds like reason enough to give it a try.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 05:28 PM
Hmmm...just spent some time going over that website. Sounds like a pretty darn good idea. Almost too good. My concern is that they are expecting some major "trickle down", and things don't tend to trickle as much as people tend to hope. The constant quotes of consumer prices dropping 20-25% seemed a bit "pie-in-the-sky" as well. That site paints a very rosy picture. Like I've said though, it seems like a terrific idea. I'd like to hear the other side of the story before I decide whether or not I'm for it though. Any good sites stating the opposing view?

I've noted a couple of flaws already though. No tax on used goods? Why would ANYONE buy a new car ever again? The music/dvd industry...what would keep a business from simply opening all their cd's and dvd's and selling them as "used"? (Please don't tell me good morals.)



Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 09:28 PM
about the CD thing. Why would they sell something for less than they paid for it? I assume the store would have to buy the CDs new, and pay taxes on them.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 09:38 PM
I believe purchases for resale are exempt from the national tax.

Great idea to me...I buy nearly everything used. Ebay is my friend.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 09:53 PM
I found some more analysis of the national sales tax idea. Very detailed.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 10:32 PM
It was detailed, except the model used was not based on elimination of payroll taxes, especially from the employer's end, which would drastically reduce costs to business, thus lowering business costs, and prices. Nor did it factor in the 2003 idea of a 23 % (instead of 18.2%) tax with a $3600 per year per household "pre-bate". This amounts to a $15,000 + exemption... PLUS, no payroll taxes.

It also assumes that ALL income from high income earners IS subject to tax, which it is not. Most "super rich" have vast amounts of income from tax free accounts. Not to Pick on the Kerry's, but thet paid a 12% net rate... and I don't blame them, they used the current law to their benefit.

As for cars... the free market system would, within 3 years, adjust the value of cars... used car values would rise, with the net effect being the guy trading in his car would get more on trade. And people buy new for the status, give a $100,000 per year guy ALL his income... and there will be an extra Corvette sold.

Spiff.... there would be SOME grumbling from people if this was to pass... that grumbling would be from all the people either getting a free ride, and accounts and IRS people.

I will personally kick in $10,000 to a "re-train the IRS into a productive member of society" fund...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 10:41 PM
Found a great PDF that breaks it down in plain English.

Here's a quote for consideration:

"Advocates like to assert that sales taxes are pro-family relative to the income tax. But
children and families benefit disproportionately from numerous features of the current system,
including dependent exemptions, child credits, child care credits, earned income credits and
education credits. And the preferential treatment of housing, health insurance, and state and local
tax payments also plausibly helps families, since they consume relatively more housing, medical
services, and government-provided services such as education. All of these preferences would be
eliminated under a sales tax. Moreover, compared to childless couples, families with kids generally
have high consumption relative to income, so switching from income tax to a consumption tax
would further raise tax burdens during years when family needs were highest. Based on 1996 data,
a recent study found that enactment of a broad-based, flat-rate consumption tax like the sales tax or
flat tax would hurt families with incomes less than $200,000, because of the loss of tax preferences,
but would help families with income above $200,000, due to the dramatic reduction in the top tax
rate. Incorporating the 1997 and 2001 tax changes—especially the child and education credits-—
would only exacerbate these results."

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 11:01 PM
PM .. Those issues were handled in the pending bill. With the elimination of payroll taxes plus the addition of the $3600 family rebate, let's look at the current family making $20,000 ... The take home pay is about $15,000 under the current system. If they spend ALL $15000 buying new "stuff", they pay $3450 in taxes, but got a $3600 prebate. This family does not buy new cars, and often will buy used clothing, TV's, rtc... but even if they bought everything new, they would still pay no taxes.

and there is NOTHING in the bill which eliminates cheaper housing, health insurance, etc... don't get mad, but the fact that the people who did this shows a negative bias, because the tax rules have NOTHING to do with cheaper housing... etc...

I see people of all income types regularly, and EVERY couple I have talked to, when explained to how they could keep ALL their paycheck, AND get $300 in the mail, in exchange for their paying a 23 % sales tax excites them...

Remember... this bill is revenue neutral to today's code... and if the 25 % of our economy which is tax exempt (the drug dealers, waitstaff, cabbies, hookers, tax exempt accounts, moonlighting jobs... etc...etc...etc...) pays ITS fair share, the 75% of us who DO pay a fair share will get a reduction.... I like that idea... even for the Blue States
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/08/04 11:21 PM
Craig,

Thanks for the info. A lot of us are still in the too-good-to-be-true phase of mulling this over.

There's a very good discussion happening over here.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/09/04 02:41 AM
PM... that was a good discussion ... even the guys spouting off were passionate without being mean...

By the Way, We have a flat tax in Pa.... you pay 2.7 % of what you make. period. I spend 3 minutes per year on my state tax.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/09/04 10:08 PM
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions

An interesting read/listen. Not surprising in the least that this stuff goes on. Do you think we'd still be the world's biggest superpower if we played fair in the world?
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/10/04 02:00 AM
That was fun... better fiction than a Ludlum book... it reminds me of the guys who were into the conspiracy theories about all the people who dies around the Clintons...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/10/04 06:12 AM
I was expecting someone to flatly deny that.

Though you may deny his story is real, the practice of allowing developing countries to borrow amounts of money that they cannot possibly repay is quite rampant.

If you need more evidence, just let me know.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 11/10/04 07:22 AM
Right, but deny those tin-pot dictators the loans they demand and you're a racist country stifling the economic development of these poor developing countries and condemning their people to poverty. With folks like you PMB, we can't win for doing or not doing.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/10/04 12:41 PM
PM - I am with 2x6 - We should quit this evil practice... NO MORE money to the third world.

I DO have an idea, though. Since the Blue States were all for Kerry's $2 trillion tax increase, and it won't happen, you all could come together in the spirit of community and DONATE $2 trillion to all these countries. It would be VOLUNTARY ... which means at your CHOICE ... and a very nice thing to do.

You are Pro-Choice, yes ? ...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/10/04 04:28 PM
You guys don't get it. It's not the fact that we give out the loans that's the problem. It's the harsh conditions that we impose on the countries once they accept the money. For example, any products that the country makes and exports to the United States are subject to stiff tarrifs. But if the US wants to export to that country, no tarrif is imposed in that direction.

This creates a system where it is actually cheaper for these countries to US foreign US made products -- and often even foreign foodstuffs -- that to buy their own locally made/grown products.

Is that not ****ed up?
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/10/04 04:52 PM
PM... I love ya man... but you "left leaners" need to make up your minds, so I know which bitch to believe in... are we:

A. Out-sourcing all our jobs to low wage countries, which was the battle cry during the election.

B. Forcing these countries to buy US made stuff because we lent them money ???

This is good stuff...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/10/04 06:35 PM
Yeah, but the theme is consistent, "Capitalism sucks. America sucks. We should all feel very guilty."
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 11/10/04 09:45 PM
I don't think the idea is that Capitalism sucks, nor that America sucks. I think what PM is trying to do is put things in perspective. So many people think that the US's sh*t smells like roses. It's simply not true. We've done and continue to do things both on the domestic front, and certainly internationaly that perhaps we should think about changing. Blind flag waving does not help.

To make an analogy to something we can all likely relate to...

The office "yes-man". Kisses the bosses backside at every occasion, and NEVER tells his boss that they may be doing something wrong, or that perhaps there's a better way of doing things. They just say "Yes sir!" to everything. I personally don't think the "yes man" is doing his/her boss any favors. As an employee you should be doing everything you can to improve things, find more efficient solutions...and if you see something that could be done better, say so!

If the Unites States is Acme Inc. Then our elected politicians are Acme Inc. managment. We as citizens are the employees. Blind flag wavers chaning "USA! USA!" are the "yes men".

That's just how I see it.


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/10/04 10:49 PM
Spiff, I own five businesses, and have many employees willing to tell me when I am wrong, as do most successful business owners.

Being conservative does not mean you are a flag waving, yes man. I have written many letters to various politicians, and actually know our local congressman, and have had many a lively debate with him.

By the way, the citizens are NOT employees, they are stockholders. Those who do not vote give proxy to those of us who do. Stockholders, like citizens, are invited to participate.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/11/04 12:34 AM
If you're not blindly flag-waving or being a yes-man, how do you explain your utter lack of interest or willingness to acknowledge the double-standard -- I like to call it the "Give them a leg up, but nail the other foot to the floor" policy -- in our government's foreign aid policy?

And BigWill, your over-use of anti-American accusations is reducing them to background noise. Cry wolf some more, why don'tcha?
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/11/04 01:11 AM
Because it is a ridiculous assumption
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 11/11/04 01:16 AM
PMB, do you live here, on this OT Politics site? Let me see if I understand your point. The US gives aid to third world countries and finances the IMF and World Bank for infrastructure development projects. We give more money in foreign aid and food aid to these failed nations than anyone else, probably more than the rest of the world combined. What are we doing wrong here? Oh, I see, our commercial banks lend them money. OK, and the problem is what? Oh, they expect to be repaid. The US foreign aid program oppresses these countries. I see your point.

My favorite example is Somalia. We see news broadcasts of starving black children with distended bellies and flies eating their eyes, immaciated mothers who cannot feed their children. Breaks a nation's heart. We send food through the UN. The food is stolen by warlords. We send in Marines to help get the food to the people. The Warlords and Imams declare Jihad against US invaders. The folks who stole the food, the warlords and their "technicals" that is, thugs in Toyota pick up trucks mounting 20 caliber machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, and prepubescents carrying AK47s kill our boys, hack their bodies to pieces, set them on fire and the people cheer. Death to the infidel Crusaders!

Yes, PMB, it's a crazy world and we're the bad guys, right? Forgive the observation, but what a twisted and naive point of view.

You call BigWill a butt kisser, a flag waiver? If you hate America, that's your right, but don't be defensive if folks see through your subtle and soft voiced tirade and call you on it.

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 11/11/04 01:43 AM
Why do I even bother? You guys can't see beyond the fact that I'm to your left and you deliberately misrepresent and twist my words. Did you even read my posts? I haven't said a damn thing about food aid, and yet your post makes it seem like I'm criticizing the US for trying to feed to hungry.

**** you. I'm no longer into this masochism.
Posted By: bray Re: OT: politics - 11/11/04 02:23 AM
I dont drop in here that often.












Now I remember why.
Posted By: ScottA Re: OT: politics - 11/11/04 03:08 AM
Amen Bray. I read this forum daily and to be honest it makes me sick. I get so tired of BigWill thinking if you question the government at all, you are a traitor. Thats just bull***t. This country would not be here if someone had not questioned the ruling government of that time.

And it is so good to see Craigs condescending, better than thou comments back in the mix. I am so tired of intolerance and insecurrity. Grow the f up. Just because PMB or Spiff does not agree with you, it does not mean they are wrong. What makes Big Will or Craigsub experts on everything? Why are you guys right and everyone that thinks differently wrong?

I am just glad that everyone in this country is not so close-minded about everything.

I think I have had just about enough of this forum. I enjoy reading about people and their speakers and home theaters and offering help if I can, but some people are just so nasty its just not worth it anymore.

Scott
Posted By: bray Re: OT: politics - 11/11/04 03:36 AM
I'm not going to leave the forum, but this thread will not be visited again.
At first I saw some very well thought out and CIVAL debate, but now all I see is a bunch of mud slinging.
Come on guys this is a friggin message board, its supposed to be fun and imformative.
Chances are, if those of you that argue and insult each other most met face to face you would be friends.
Some of my best friends, I dont agree with politically.
SO THE **** WHAT!!!!!! It takes ALL types to make this country GREAT.
Carry on
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 11/11/04 04:19 AM
Gee Scott... I don't remember calling names. I see your point though. If PM posts a link, it is Gospel, NOT to be countered. I know right wing nuts who were posting the same drivel about conspiracy theories during the 90's. Ron Brown was murdered, because he "knew too much".

Now we have the left doing the same. Fine... go ahead and wallow in how our foreign policy is made to make lower income countries our slaves. Hang on... We are ALSO outsourcing our jobs to these people. We have lent countries money for decades, and we would have continued to do so under Kerry... would the left have argued this point then ?

You see, I happen to think the world is a pretty good place, and can also have a conversation without personal attacks. If you want to have a conversation and discuss opinion, great. Do it without the name calling, which is juvenile, and by using YOUR brain, rather than another link to some nut case... That (engaging in real talk) is what adults do.

By the way...I never saw Bigwill try to get someone to leave the conversation. He is expressing an opinion. Or is that not allowed in your version of the first amendment..?
Posted By: AdamP88 It goes both ways. - 11/11/04 04:47 AM
In reply to:

Do it without the name calling




Hi pot, this is kettle...
Posted By: craigsub Re: It goes both ways. - 11/11/04 04:52 AM
Ok... Give me all the examples in which I resort to name calling...
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: It goes both ways. - 11/11/04 05:17 AM
Need I go back to your obvious use of the word "liberal" as an insult?
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: It goes both ways. - 11/11/04 07:17 AM
Why aren't you proud of the term "liberal?" It's not like he's calling you a communist, or a fascist. The tension between liberals and conservatives is usually policy and value driven and relatively civil.
Posted By: craigsub Re: It goes both ways. - 11/11/04 12:06 PM
Adam - I call myself a conservative. Is THAT an insult ?
Posted By: Zarak Re: It goes both ways. - 11/11/04 01:22 PM
If I recall, it wasn't the term, but rather the context in which it was used.
Posted By: craigsub Re: It goes both ways. - 11/11/04 02:32 PM
I see.... I don't suppose we could get a definitive example of the context in which "liberal" was an insult ?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: It goes both ways. - 11/11/04 02:33 PM
in the words of james earl jones in 'a field of dreams'...

"PEACE, LOVE, DOPE.. NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!!"

i kinda find it funny that anyone is getting riled up at all.. ? my opinion is exactly that, MY opinion. ya'll have your own, and thats fine.. i cant help it if you are all wrong!!

bigjohn


Posted By: craigsub Re: It goes both ways. - 11/11/04 02:40 PM
Now THAT was funny...
Posted By: 2x6spds An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 12:23 AM
With thanks to Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe:
In reply to:

YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.
In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."

God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich?...

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command.



Posted By: 2x6spds Re: An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 03:35 AM
OK, too hot to deal with, right?

So, let me ask the question ... Arafat, a murderer, not only of children, a leader who gave the order to dispatch Palestinian children to don explosive laden clothing and blow themselves up and kill Jews on busses, in pizza parlors, restaurants, Passover Seders ... Arafat, the man who ordered the murder of political contenders, Arafat who stole from the Palestinian people the blood money sent by the EU, Arafat, the man who controlled the Palestinian press, the man who attempted to kill Jordan's King Hussein, the man who left Lebanon in civil war for a decade, Arafat, mourned by Chirac as a man who died before his life's work was done (there are still Jews in Israel) do liberals look at this man as a freedom fighter or a murderer? a tyrant or a sympathetic figure? How about conservatives?

Jimmy Carter is on his way to the funeral. Anyway, now that Arafat is dead, maybe there will be peace. One can hope. You can't have peace when there is hate in the heart of a people.
Posted By: craigsub Re: An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 04:33 AM
HE was a murderer.
Posted By: AdamP88 Re: It goes both ways. - 11/12/04 04:37 AM
In reply to:

I don't suppose we could get a definitive example of the context in which "liberal" was an insult ?




With pleasure.

"As a liberal, I know you think the Constitution is an opinion piece..."

And with that I'm out of this thread. Have fun.
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 04:43 AM
I'll bite.

Arafat was a pathetic little worm of a parasite that has finally decided to take the eternal dirt-nap that has been his due just reward for many years. Any world leader that honors his death is nothing more than a pandering shell of a man/woman. Many will rejoice in his honored leadership over the palestinean people and his efforts in the peace process. Every last one of them should be ashamed. He was nothing more than a spineless opportunistic terrorist that deserved nothing more than a high-powered round planted deep between his eyes.

Man...that felt good.

Not matter what the cause....TERRORISM IS TERRORISM. Sympathize w/ the Palestinean cause, but do not honor those who openly sponsored terrorism in the name of that cause.

Yes..I know that I'm breaking my earlier statement of intent not to post here again. After numerous vodka-tonics, I somehow lost that self-control thing.

While I'm here, you guys need to take a breather here and ratchet things down. We are all like-minded Axiom-lovers. We had a good civil dialog going which has recently gone south....not surprising w/ the election. Either take some time and decide to continue the dialog in a productive manner or perhaps this thing just needs to end. There's enough animosity over at the other forums to tide us over. Let's try to keep this one positive in nature.
Posted By: craigsub Re: It goes both ways. - 11/12/04 05:03 AM
Adam ... The liberal view of the constitution is that it is "A living, breathing document. We must not look at the words in it, but at the intentions behind those words, and it is open for debate and opinion" ... Thus it is open to opinion, or an opinion piece.

That quote is from Hillary Clinton, and echoed loudly across the "left" in this country.

Too bad you are "out of here", it would be interesting to get some specifics as to why you think Hillary's saying the constitution is open to opinion and my pointing this out is an insult.

This would be like me getting upset with you for saying "As a conservative, you obviously support the death penalty".

The two items she was referring to, by the way, were Roe v. Wade and Separation of church and state.

You will not find abortion as a constitutional right, nor does the constitution state the school prayer is illegal.

Abortion rights were granted under the privacy clause.

And the constitution states the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Somehow THAT got twisted so a teacher is forbidden to say a prayer in school.

HER justification, again, was that the constitution is open to "opinion" in these matters.


Posted By: ringmir Re: Politics - 11/12/04 02:27 PM
All.....can we make a new politics thread and allow this one to fall off the front page? It's just plain huge now...
Posted By: JaimeG Re: An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 03:04 PM
Had anyone seen the movie Red Dawn (mid-80’s)? Please anyone enlighten me; why those kids are not terrorists?
Posted By: Riffman Re: An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 04:38 PM
Because those kids were fighting for representative government and against totalitarianism. Of course, if you would like to sell your body and soul to the state, such relativism is completely understandable.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 05:13 PM
In reply to:

Had anyone seen the movie Red Dawn (mid-80’s)? Please anyone enlighten me; why those kids are not terrorists?




Yes, I saw the movie. The story line was that the Cuban army with Soviet support defeated the US military, successfully invaded and occupied the United States. A group of high school kids armed themselves and fought against the invading Cubans and Soviets.

They did not go into nurseries and kill 21 infants, they did not strap explosives to themselves and blow up folks on busses, folks in Pizza parlors, or a group of people celebrating the passover meal. Now, the Palestinians may believe, and certainly the majority do believe, that the existence of the Jewish state in Israel is occupation of Arab land, and that such occupation requires, as a national and religious duty, Jihad, armed struggle, an armed struggle which refuses to distinguish between a civilian and soldier, and as to that, refuses to recognize Israel's borders.

In Red Dawn, the Cubans and Soviets invaded the US. That is not the situation between Israel and the Arab world. The UN voted for the partition of Palestine (at that time the term "Palestinian" referred to its Jewish inhabitants) that is the formation of a Jewish state and an Arab state out of the mandate territory.

The Arab world refused to recognize the legimacy of the Israeli Jewish state, and the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria invaded Israel in 1948 immediately after the Jewish state announced its existence. The world expected a quick and final solution to the "Israeli" problem, that is, because of the arms embargoes, the fact that Israel lacked meaningful military equipment, the tanks and airplanes of the armies of the 5 Arab nations, no one thought Israel would survive. It did, and the armistice borders were larger than the UN mandate borders.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (a great friend of Hitler) and other Imams and Mullahs urged the Arab population to get out of Israel because the Arab armies were coming and none would be spared. The Israeli authorities urged the Arabs to stay. Many left. After the Arab armies failed in their mission, Israel franchised the Arabs who stayed as Israeli citizens, but did not permit the return of those who left. The Arab states did not welcome the Palestinian refugees, they maintained them in squalid camps, and educated them and their children that the Jews had stolen their land, that the Jews were the offspring of monkeys and pigs, and raised generation after generation of muJIHADin, people who were committed to violence to destroy the Jewish state and regain the land on which Israel now stood. The camps bred hatred and murder - teams of assasins crossed into Israel from 1948 until today for the purpose of killing Jews. There were wars in 1956, 1967 and 1973, Jordan and Egypt (along with Syria) attacked Israel and Israel prevailed and occupied the West Bank and Gaza. The West bank was never a Palestinian state. It had been part of Jordan which itself was part of the partition of Palestine. Gaza was not a Palestinian state, it was part of Egypt. Israel tried to trade land for peace. Egypt did not want Gaza and Jordan wouldn't take back the West Bank.

Israel would not negotiate with terrorists, or Arafat. The refusal of Egypt and Jordan to take back the areas in which the Palestinian refugee camps were located forced Israel to engage with the Palestinians.

Prior to 1973, Israel was 8.5 miles wide at its narrowest point. After the war Israel refused to go back to its former borders because they were essentially indefensible.

The US attempted many times to broker a deal. In Camp David Israel offered the Palestinians 97% of the land occupied by Israel as a result of the war. Arafat refused, the violent intifadah followed.

I take it this post is relevant to your question and you were not commenting that you merely thought Red Dawn was a cool movie.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 07:50 PM
In reply to:

you merely thought Red Dawn was a cool movie



hell yes man!!!

i like when c. thomas howell(later of soulman fame), shoots his buddy for swallowing the tracer bug, and giving up their position. i would have done the same thing.

WOLVERINES!!!!!!

bigjohn
Posted By: TurboDog1 Re: An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 10:34 PM
"All that hate's gonna eat you up, kid"

....."It keeps me warm."

Great movie that I've obviously seen WAY too many times.
Posted By: craigsub Re: An Epitaph for a Dead Monster - 11/12/04 10:57 PM
Red Dawn ... a NEW standard in cinema greatness...

Lea Thompson with pouty lips and a machine gun was fun, too...
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 11/12/04 11:29 PM
WOW, I didn't realize I was so widely despised!

I even put smiley faces on my last post!

Seriously though, I just call 'em like I see 'em. Maybe what you guys are feeling is that "cognitive dissonance" pmb previously refered to - how people feel when they find out they're wrong?

BTW, you cannot argue with me about politics - I majored in Political Science! I AM A SCIENTIST!!! LOL

So, as a butt-kissing, yes-man simpleton from Jesusland - I admit my constant unwavering support of the United States of America, its Constitution and my fellow citizens. I'm guilty as charged - America's the best and can do no wrong. Viva Zapatos!
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 11/12/04 11:42 PM
I am also a political science major, Pi Sigma Alpha national political science honor society, another SCIENTIST, and I've stayed in a Holiday Inn. I thought it was Viva Pizza ...
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 11/13/04 12:19 AM
In reply to:

America's the best and can do no wrong.




The second half of that statement is why you get a lot of people disagreeing with you on here. I agree that America is the best, but that certainly does not mean that America can do no wrong. No person or country is perfect. There are always some things that are not done correctly or that could be improved.
Posted By: 2x6spds Re: OT: politics - 11/13/04 12:27 AM
Zarak, easy there. I think BigWill knows that already. He's not pulling your leg because he wants a date, you know.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 12:16 AM
I believe this is the thread someone was mentioning bringing back over in the car thread

I thought this one was very enjoyable, so fire away. Should we be drilling in Alaska for oil or not?
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 12:36 AM
No. Our efforts should be focused on alternative sources of energy. Leave the oil in the ground where it belongs...dirty, nasty stuff.


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 03:53 AM
Oh... WTF!

"Should we be drilling in Alaska for oil or not?"

Why Not?

Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 04:06 AM
they are finding alternate energy sources.. Biodiesel is a perfect example. but, it is getting a luke-warm response. not only from the public, but from the gas stations and pumping facilities that are vital to its survival.

please dont fool yourself into thinking that the govt is even remotely serious about trying to find 'alternatives' to oil/gas/petroleum. i would guess that at least 10-15% of the entire worlds finances is based on oil based products.. so, until they are literally forced to make the change, they are gonna keep drilling holes in the earth til she is totally tapped out.. its sad but true.

so, that leaves us with three options..
1.- keep paying outrageous prices to other people for 'their' oil.
2.- invade and conquer other peoples lands and make 'their' oil, 'our' oil.(PS-bush is currently in the process of trying to do that)
3.- or, drill for it on our OWN F'ING LAND!!

these are just my opinions.. but its good to see this thread again.. i just didnt want to be the one to bring it back to life.

bigjohn

Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 05:51 AM
Oh, for the love of God. Start a new thread! This beast is too hairy. And pale after being buried for so long.
Posted By: AshBoomstick Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 11:26 AM
that bio-diesel comment make me remember an article i read in Discover magazine. some guy firgured out a way to take leftovers from a turkey processing plant, grind it up, cook that nasty mix, and in the end get oil out. i don't it came out great in the cost vs. returns world, but it's still an intersting idea. in the meantime, more nuclear plants (and more pay for their operators! )
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 03:43 PM
Just by tapping Anwar, and some already proven reserves in the Gulf Of Mexico, By 2010, we could be producing 6 millions barrels per day. These numbers are from a think tank of private and government researchers ... THEY also estimate another 5 million barrels per day can be had off the coast of California.

Add in the increasing use of Hybrid technology, and this entire probelm could easily be solved in 5-7 years.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 03:53 PM
so, are you saying we could get plenty of oil without drilling in alaska.. or, were you just making a general statement about the amount of oil available to us?

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 04:08 PM
Actually, I think we should utilize all the resources available. My brother in law and nephew both work in the oil fields in Alaska, and have brought pics of areas around the pipeline ... there sure are lots of Caribou playing there.

And the "Not in My Backyard" sentiment HAS to go ... Currently, our position is that we would rather have supertankers bring oil in from 4000 miles away than to have a pipeline move oil 100 miles.

Then there is the whole flexible fuel arena ... which gets bogged down because (in part), nationally, there are more than 400 different requirements for the final fuel "make up", in regards to local standards.

Getting fuel seems like the opposite of what we think about congress ... Most people love his or her district's congressman ... but HATE congress as a whole, and most people think we need to find other sources of energy (and no, solar power is not feasible ... by other sources, I mean oil, coal, or natural gas), until the drilling/exploration happens in his or her district.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 04:22 PM
I'd like to hear some comments on E85 Ethanol. What am I missing? Seems like a no-brainer to me. 85% Ethanol 15% Gasoline. Burns cleaner, 85% is ethanol...from corn, not oil, so it 1) is home grown, and 2) is renewable.

What are the drawbacks? A hyrid engine which ran on E85 sure would eliminate a HUGE amount of our country's oil consumption.

...and we've got corn coming out our ears.








Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 04:31 PM
Spiff ... Ethanol is an excellent idea, and will require market forces to become more prevelant. You are quite correct, it is totally renewable, would lower costs of subsidies to farmers, and burns clean.

And PLEASE, NOBODY is allowed to lower his opinion of Spiff because I agreed with him ...

Ford has had a flexible fuel engine available for ten years now which will burn Propane, Ethanol, Gasoline, OR natural gas.

Noone seems to want it ... but eventually, it will become accepted, when WE decide we want it.

Ford also has a new Turbo-Diesel Hybrid ... 431 Lb-Feet of torque and 300 HP, yet it will get about 40 MPG highway in an SUV ... It is due in about 18 months.
Posted By: AshBoomstick Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 04:39 PM
to inject a little levity, i've come to find I'm amazingly efficient when i'm fueled with Guinness and Maker's Mark, though i don't think i'd recommend it to the president as an energy policy!
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 04:43 PM
In reply to:

Burns cleaner, 85% is ethanol...from corn, not oil



does this mean my car will smell like my grandfather after a large meal??

seriously, once again, if that is a viable alternative fuel option, then i say go for it, fund it, research it, and lets make it happen. but, i aint the one with the money. so, i am no help. yet, the govt might throw a few million into their research, but they are still spending BILLIONS on making sure we have plenty of the REAL black crude. so again i ask, where do you think the govt's focus is at?

bigjohn
Posted By: AshBoomstick Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 05:09 PM
In reply to:

so again i ask, where do you think the govt's focus is at?


let's ask the top two guys in the executive branch, whose former jobs were in the oil industry...


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 05:18 PM
EXACTLY....

you have no idea how hard it is for me to be sooo proud to be from texas, but then have the biggest baffoon from our state somehow levitate to the most powerful position in the world. it just pains me...

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 05:23 PM
Yep, Dubya's Involvement in the oil industry, which ended in 1991 was ALL part of today's oil prices ... , and Cheney's selling his stock In Halliburton during the 2000 campaign is DEFINITELY a sure sign of collusion.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 06:14 PM
In reply to:

Yep, Dubya's Involvement in the oil industry, which ended in 1991 was ALL part of today's oil prices ... , and Cheney's selling his stock In Halliburton during the 2000 campaign is DEFINITELY a sure sign of collusion.



Perhaps not, but it certainly tells you where their hearts and minds are. To them oil is the only way to power America.


Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 06:18 PM
craig- while i can appreciate your humor, i think you might want to quit fooling yourself.

dubya, and ALL his buddies, ARE/WERE/and are STILL being made by oil. so, if you think dubya is going to do anything to screw that up, you are sadly mistaken. he is entrenched in what we like to call "the good ole' boy network".. and while he is there, he is gonna fatten every single one of his oil buddies pockets if he can.

so, i agree that we need to drill on our OWN land for oil. but, i also agree that we need to put more money and research into alternative fuels. and which one of those options do you honestly think he is gonna push..?

and, please dont doubt, dubya IS an idiot. he reminds me of every gooberhead, daddys boy i have ever met.

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 07:34 PM
Your post is quite telling about your own intelligence.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 07:37 PM
The fuel cell program spnosored by Bush and being worked on by GM, Ford, and DCM must be part of the "Oil Only" plan.

You guys remind me of the "Clinton sucks" crowd of the 90's ... They said the same type of stuff about him, too.

Conspiracy theorists DO enjoy specualting without proof ...
Posted By: MarkSJohnson Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 07:42 PM
Well, to maybe lighten things up a bit (maybe):
Craig wrote:
In reply to:

To them oil is the only way to power America.



Craig:
Did you mean to write:
"To them oil is the only way to power IN America "?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 07:49 PM
craigsub, it's quite common for people to insult the President, especially in this thread, but that lash at bigjohn is precisely the reason I had issues with you during the first incarnation of this thread. Please keep it civil.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 07:59 PM
PM - By definition, There is no bigger fool than someone who fools himself. Big John is allowed to tell me to quit fooling myself, thus calling me a fool. THAT is ok by you, but then you decide that I am not being civil.

So tell me, what is uncivil by saying one's post is an indicator of one's own intelligence ?

Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 08:05 PM
clinton doesnt suck, he inhales...

i dont imply, or even begin to act like i am some sort of 'know it all' when it comes to politics, and the inner workings of the govt. im not. but, i would consider myself an 'expert' on the type of guy that dubya is. i am surrounded by them, i grew up around them, and my friends fathers are like them. that whole cocky, know it all, never wrong, financially strong, bully everyone around attitude that he exudes makes me sick. the guy has had a silver spoon in his mouth his whole life, and stumbled from deal to deal with smiles, handshakes and promises. people throwing money and accolades at him because of who he was, who he knows, or what he could do for them. his idea of a 'best friend', is the last guy that padded his wallet.

i have no doubt that you are/were a successful business man at whatever it is that you do. which would lead me to belive that you are more like dubya, than you are like me.. which, in all honesty, is probably why we have very opposite opinions. while i respect your right to have your opinion, there is no doubt it is different from mine. but i respectively ask, that you respect my right for MY opinion before you go questioning my intelligence.

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 08:17 PM
First of all, You called me a fool ... and still you see nothing wrong with that. There was nothing in telling me to "quit fooling myself" that was respecting my opinion. Especially in light of the fact I gave no opinions, I just posted some easily verifiable facts. And whether you like it or not, EACH post someone makes is an indicator of intelligence. I never said you LACKED intelligence. YOU made an assumption that I was saying that. Read my post again.

Second, I started every business I own from scratch, and in fact, I hired my father to work for me. He retired rather well, too. I have to see to it several hundred people have good jobs, that our companies do well enough to grow and that the harder working, more successful people in my employ have the opportunity to advance. In the past three months alone, we have added 30 new positions, most paying over $40,000 per year. Since you alluded that I am "more like Bush", and you think Bush got everything he had through "Daddy", you have also insulted me again. And again you were WRONG.

I thought Bill Clinton did a pretty good job. I think George W. Bush is doing a pretty good job. I don't go around tossing the word "idiot" at people.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 08:45 PM
i referred to dubya as an "idiot", not you.. on hindsight, maybe that was a little harsh, but i just dont like the guy, or his type.

and when i referred to you as being more like dubya, and less like me, i was simply referring to the fact that you(and him) have money, and i do not. i have NO beef with you, or how you made your fortunes, honestly i dont.. i wasnt trying to imply that you got your wealth by following similar paths.. i was implying that(and i am probably gonna put my foot in my mouth again), wealthy people tend to think similar, and have more republican based ideas.. and less wealthy people tend to have similar ideas, and have more democratic based ideas. i simply meant that it makes sense that you would have similar views and ideas to his because you both are in positions of wealth and financial power.

now, the real diference here is, i can see how dubya uses and abuses his authority and power. thats what i dont like about him.. and compound that onto the fact that i really dont think he has earned or deserves the position that he holds.

and on the other hand, i dont know a single thing about you.. other than you have lots of speakers, and that you are a pretty nice guy by rays and jacks words. i dont know how you do business. i mean, it really doesnt matter, does it?

this is the exact reason why everyone hated this thread so much.. and it is the exact reason why i liked it. 2 grown men, 2 diferent lifestyles, thousands of miles apart, arguing about a subject that neither of them will ever be able to change, and probably never coming to a conclusion that will make either of them happy. am i the ONLY one that gets a chuckle out of this.?

i got no disrespect for you craig..
we agree to disagree, and thats totally cool with me.
you got your ways, and i got mine..

and were both gonna drive our big gas-guzzling cars home, eat a large hearty dinner, listen to our awesome HT systems, and go to bed and not loose a wink of slep over any of this.. at least i wont...

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 08:57 PM
Bigjohn ... You certainly make a lot of broad based assumptions on people you know little or nothing about. If you wish to now say you don't have a beef with me, and that you were not implying anything ... fine. I read everything you wrote quite carefully.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 09:18 PM
In reply to:

a lot of broad based assumptions



i made ONE assumption, not a lot.. and the ONE i made was that you, as a man of wealth(which we know is true..and thats not a dig, its the truth), would think similar to how dubya would think, and less to how i would think. thats it. if that offends you that much, or if it bothers you that much, my apologies. i aint trying to offend or make nobody feel bad here man..

where did this go wrong..? this all went bad in translation. reading words on a page, is way different than actually sitting and talking with a guy. i am sure you and i could drink a beer and have a fine time together, and never miss a beat. i can tell you with 100% confidence, that i never had any malicious or harmful intent in anything i said to you. now, about dubya, i could care less.. but, its would be rather stupid of me to sit here and criticise or chastise a respected member of this forum like yourself. come on man, its not even in my character to do that. this was all a simple error in translation.

i would really be displeased if you truly thought i was trying to attack you. i aint even that kinda guy. but, i still dont like dubya.. and if i ever had a chance to met him, i am the kinda guy that would tell him that to his face..

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/15/05 11:25 PM
One assumption ? First, about President Bush (and with precisely zero facts about him to back up your attack on him) you said he was "cocky, know it all, never wrong, financially strong, bully everyone" ... "with a silver spoon in his mouth his whole life" ... then "stumbled from deal to deal with smiles, promises and handshakes" ... and five more insults followed.

You then said I was "more like Dubya than you are like me" and "which is why we have very opposite opinions." You were very clearly attempting to state that I must also have all those detriments you apply to our president. You also don't know WHAT my opinion of George W. Bush is.

From where I sit, between President Bush, whom you have never met, and me, who you know VERY little about, you made fourteen assumptions.

You also started down this attack road of yours by telling me "I was fooling myself" ... which means you called me a fool. I responded by stating you post was a statement about your intelligence. Again, as I stated earlier, ALL posts are a statement about one's intelligence. IT was ironic that YOU made the assumption (#15) that I was citing your LACK of intelligence.

For the record, you are not the first person I have met either in person or on forums who has compared me to others they know with "Daddy's" money ... and you will note I am not comparing you to them. I am merely reading your precise words, and responding accordingly.

But ... If it is now your position that you meant nothing in the way of an attack on me, ok.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 12:09 AM
Ahem
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 12:12 AM
Your point is ?
Posted By: bridgman Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 12:23 AM
>>Your point is ?

... that there are some GREAT cartoons at that link and that we should all go page through them for a while instead of getting into a pissing contest about something as depressingly ambiguous as politics.

I guess that makes me an Eagle Scout
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 12:43 AM
Bridgman, I DO appreciate your wanting to bring some humor into this, and normally I like to do the same. But there are certain people here who love to make insults, then act innocent. I literally had posted facts about Dick Cheney and George W. Bush ... and BigJohn said I was "fooling myself"

With politicians from both sides, people could draw all sorts of conclusions. For example, Al Gore owns 88 acres of pastureland in Tenessee for which he has been given over $500,000 from Occidental Oil for mineral rights. The Gore family was given this tract of land shortly after Al Gore Sr., in 1971, had seen to it Occidental had gotten a 47,000 parcel of Federal property literally given to them by the Govt.

Later, Al Gore Sr. took a $500K per year job with Occidental, and Jr. has made the $500K in royalties, and the stock is worth $1 million. Not bad for zero investment.

Then there is the Kerry/Heinz Family, who pay about 12% of their income in federal taxes ...($600,000 last year on $5 million in income ... all through tax loopholes)

YEP - Politicians take advantage of a LOT of largess ... But we just don't see the "right" leaning guys pointing out the same type of examples that the "left" leaning guys do. I have also noted, in my life experience, that people tend to act in their own selfish interests. Employees, Employers, Unions, Management ... etc... I have ALSO noticed people tend to pick a particular point of view, and that is IT.

Does President Bush get the most he can from the circumstances as provided ? Yep. So does everyone else ... Afterall, I don't see too many lottery winners deciding they are "getting more than their fair share", and turning the ticket back in.

Anyway, I was merely posting facts, when BigJohn took it upon himself to post what he did. I was not typing anything about him ... but, according to him, Spiff, and PM ... HE is allowed to say ANYTHING he wants ... and that is GREAT. If I respond ... That is uncivil.


Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 12:47 AM
Hmmmm...I remembered this thread being fun...why is it that only the bad parts seem to be coming back? Can we please just call it a miscommunication and move on.....things come across differently when looking at the written word. Meaning is harder to get across sometimes without the inflection of the words being spoken. Let's get back to the politics part of the thread and if there is a question of was something meant to be an insult, assume it isn't unless there is just no other way it could be taken. Just my 2 cents.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 12:55 AM
Zarak - For my part, there is no anger here. Just trying to stick to factual presentations ... sans name calling.
Posted By: bridgman Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 07:18 AM
>>there are certain people here who love to make insults, then act innocent. I literally had posted facts about Dick Cheney and George W. Bush

Yeah... I couldn't bear to page back through the thread so I didn't even find out how it started, I just saw more people piling on, saw the thread degenerating into a brawl, and none of the people seemed to be having a particularly good time
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 12:58 PM
Bridgman ... Politics are rarely fun, unless you are watching "The Daily Show"

While people argue over which guy is more corrupt, or bullying ... or any one of the myriad of the names one wishes to apply, freedoms are eroded. Example:

Amercians spent 6.6 BILLION hours doing their 2004 taxes at a cost of over $300 BILLION dollars. 6.6 BILLION hours is the entire lifetime of 11,000 70 year olds. Source is the IRS.

This 300 Billion dollars is almost the entire Deficit projected next year ... NOW, add into this the $3 TRILLION underground economy ... which pays NO Tax (It would be appx $750 BILLION in tax Revenues) ... and the $6 trillion tied up in tax free funds which generate $500 BILLION in income for the super rich on which THEY pay no tax ... (it would be another $175 BILLION in revenues) ... and suddenly it becomes pretty easy to understand why the National Sales Tax makes sense for PEOPLE ... though not for POLITICIANS ... The #1 STRANGLEHOLD Washington has on us IS the IRS.

Under the National sales tax, at 23% ... All FICA taxes (15.7 %) AND all income taxes would be gone ... NO tax returns to fill out.

For the poor, They get $300 per month from the Govt., and Food is exempt. In other words, the Single mom making $2000 per month and paying $500 in taxes now, netting $1500 gets to KEEP the whole $2000 ... PLUS she gets $300. She now has $2300.

Let's say she buys $500 worth of food ... under the current system, she now has $1000 left for everything else. Under this new system, she has $1800 left ... IF she spends the entire $1000 under the current system, she would, under the NST, spend $1230. This means she would have an EXTRA $570. EVERY MONTH.

In the meantime - The drug dealers, prostitutes, Muni Bond Holders, and everyone else who is getting a free ride is now paying into the system.

Anyone wish to chat about how to get both Democrats AND Republicans off our backs AND out of our houses ?






Posted By: snakeyes Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 01:16 PM
so to paraphrase craig polititions suck! j/k seriously though craig the national sales tax thing is pretty cool but how would they monitor it so many companies skirt sales tax as it is now? and would that apply to internet sales as well? also the national sales tax thing kind of reminds me of that idea of no car insurance just put a $1 to $3 insurance tax on gas and figure if you use more gas you travel more or at higher speeds and therefore are more of a liability.there are definatly better ways but the people let the polititions get a way with it.it wont change until we (americans not axiom owners) change it!just out of curiousity as a general question how is a state like texas can have no state income tax? where do they make up the difference? anywho just my two pennies.
Jake
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 01:28 PM
Snakeeyes ... In Pa., it is estimated about $10 mill per year is "skimmed" from sales tax ... pretty minor. BUT ... to answer your question, The easiest way is to have severe penalties for tax cheats. For retail establishments, for example, computerized cash registers. Plus ... with such a preponderence of credit card and check spending, and very little cash, tracking is not difficult.

As for Texas not having an income tax ... it is a thriving state without one ... think about it ..
Posted By: bray Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 01:47 PM
We have a higher SALES TAX than most. 6.25%
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 01:55 PM
Bray ... New York has an income tax that tops out at 11 % AND a 7 to 8 % sales tax, depending on county.

Hmmmmmm ... Which State is going places ? Adding companies ? New York ? or Texas ?

Oh ... and Pennsylvania has a 6% sales tax AND a 2.9% flat income tax.
Posted By: littleb Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 02:00 PM
Nah, he's not an idiot. Just a very dangerous liar.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 02:03 PM
littleb ... I am not sure to whom you are referring ?
Posted By: MarkSJohnson Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 02:19 PM
NH has no income tax AND no sales tax. Property taxes are higher than the average, but NH is still consistantly rated as one of, if not THE lowest-taxed states. And we're doing just fine!
Posted By: littleb Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 02:33 PM
Craig, I was standing up for Mr. Bush, on the one hand, and I'm afraid denegrating him at the same time. I don't believe he is an idiot, as many people have said. I do believe he is astute at managing situations, but I also believe he went too far in Iraq. In my opinion, his management abilities weren't getting the results he had hoped for when he started this Iraq thing, so he made some things up, with disastrous results, so far. The elections in Iraq may bring about a more just society in the Persian Gulf or it might blow up in everyone's face. I always get the feeling that this President would rather try to fool the public rather than tell the truth, and to me that makes him dangerous.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 02:43 PM
littleb ... I could post literally 100's of pages from Bill Clinton, Colin Powell, George Tenet, John Kerry, Bob Dole, Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman ... etc... in which they said the IDENTICAL things about Iraq that George W. Bush said.

Were they all lying, too ?
Posted By: littleb Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 03:05 PM
Craig,

I don't know the answer to that question. I truly wish I did. We all know that something went terribly wrong in the top wrungs of our government. It has been blamed on bad intelligence. Let's just say I'm cautiously suspicious. It's apparent to me that someone in our government just plain lied. The President is the head of that government and should be held accountable. It doesn't appear that is going to happen anytime soon, so it is really a mute point.


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 03:11 PM
littleb ... A wealth of information is available to anyone who wants to read it. The simple fact is that intelligence agencies from around the world ALL said Iraq had WMD's. We know for certain the Hussein did use WMD's agains both Iran and his own Kurdish population.

But, if you have decided ONE man deserves scrutiny while everyone else gets a free pass ... that is your perofative in a free society.
Posted By: AshBoomstick Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 03:31 PM
someone please kill this thread...
Posted By: littleb Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 03:32 PM
Neither should we give a free pass to a leader who may have rushed his countrymen into an unnecessary war. LBJ was the last leader who walked down that street, and we know what a disaster that turned into.
Posted By: littleb Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 03:36 PM
agreed
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 03:42 PM
Littleb .. In November, 2002, The UN passed the final resolution authorizing military action if Hussein did not allow full and free inspections within 30 days. We waited 120 days, with troops on the ground, before going to war. This was after 12 YEARS of Hussein violating the first 13 resolutions.

38 countries were there with us.

And George W. Bush has NOT been given a free pass from anyone. People like you have been calling him a liar, said he went about this alone, and again, the list goes on.

You are entitled to your opinion. BUT ... you should know this, on July 22, 2003, President Clinton said the following on "Larry King Live" :

"It is incontestable that, on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

Further "We never got to go back there to find out if they were ever destroyed"

This was AFTER the Gulf War II that President Clinton said all this.

All this info is easily found... some will try to find it, and make an informed decision. Others will not.

Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 03:52 PM
In reply to:

We have a higher SALES TAX than most. 6.25%




You only think that's high. Try 8.25% on for size...AND we pay more for gas than anyone else in the country.

There's a heavy price to pay for 72 degrees and sunny 365.


Posted By: littleb Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 04:07 PM
The 2900 was really a deal then, wasn't it. You don't have to pay for heating fuel living in sunny, warm southern California. Us frozen bunnies have to dish out about $1000/year just to keep from freezing to death.
Posted By: bray Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 04:26 PM
8.25%!!!!!!!????????
I'll never complain again about 6.25%.
Of course we'll only have 72 degrees for about another 3 weeks, then over night it will change to 100+ degrees.
Posted By: snakeyes Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 04:30 PM
spiff 8.25% in mid-state ny $2.69 for super whats your gas.

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 04:39 PM
In Northwest Pa... We are $2.15 per gallon for gas ... When adjusted for inflation, not bad, historically. Especially when you consider that a 1985 full size sedan averaged about 15 MPG.
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 05:54 PM
In reply to:

You only think that's high. Try 8.25% on for size...AND we pay more for gas than anyone else in the country.

There's a heavy price to pay for 72 degrees and sunny 365.


CRAP! We pay 8% for 35 degrees and sunny 65 (not a typo). . No cracks from you surfer boys.

Posted By: AdamP88 Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 07:37 PM
It's not uncommon to see $2.69 for plain old regular here, snakeyes.
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 07:48 PM
Coming back from my haircut a few minutes ago, it was 2.149 per gallon.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 07:54 PM
Just down the road from me at the local 76 station it's $3.09/gallon. Typically super is about $2.89 - $2.99/gallon right now.


Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 08:59 PM
I just filled up for 1.79 a gallon.I am using E85 fuel,I wish more stations carried it for those of us that use it.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:00 PM
$1.79/gallon for E85.

That right there would solve our foreign oil issues. Make our own fuel from corn, and sell it for less.


Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:03 PM
I totaly agree with you Craig.I would just as soon give my money to the farmers of this country than anyone.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:12 PM
Rick ... What type of Vehicle do you drive ?
Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:15 PM

I have a 2000 Chevy S-10.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:16 PM
Is it a Flex Fuel engine ?
Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:19 PM

Yes it is.It is a 2.2 4 cylinder.
Posted By: snakeyes Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:25 PM
i would start using a ten speed if my customers would not mind me dripping with sweat when i worked in their office. lol
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:25 PM
Thanks ... Ford, like Chevrolet, has produced a flex fuel engine for twelve years. The problem is, other than municipalities, very few people will buy one. Both company's engines will run on ethanol, natural gas or propane. You cannot even tell the difference in the driving experience. Ford also spent literally millions advertising the engine ... and was ignored. In 1995, They had plans for half the vehicles sold to have this engine.

Now the general public wants a scapegoat as to why we are so dependent on foreign oil.

EDIT ... Would anyone like to guess how much this optional engine costs ?
Posted By: snakeyes Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:28 PM
craig- 1995 was ten years ago and the only liquid i cared about then was beer. but why was it ignored? what were the cons (real or imagined)?
Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:29 PM

To tell you the truth I am the only one I know that runs a flex fuel vehical.As far as performance goes I can't tell the difference.Mileage is pretty close to the same too.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:30 PM
Snakeyes ... IT is available today ... and has been available on ALL regular Taurus and Sable models since the 1994 model year...
Posted By: snakeyes Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:32 PM
i know it is available. i was more asking why in 95 when ford was pushing it why did it get luke warm acceptance?
Posted By: Wid Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:32 PM
I believe Chrysler also produced some flex fuel engines.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:33 PM
The flex-fuel engine has the identical performance as does the standard fuel engine ... will run to 200,000 miles easily, and cost ......... ZERO. It is a NO CHARGE option.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:34 PM
Snakeyes ... The reason it did not get more notice, is we tend to not care when things are rolling.
Posted By: snakeyes Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:37 PM
Thats it it didnt smell funny cost more anything like that? no downsides at all be itreal or counter marketing? hard to believe. im not arguing with its just a little shocking is all.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:42 PM
Snakeyes, No extra cost, no smells ... NOTHING. It is a no cost option, and always has been. We can grow the Corn for it ... heck we PAY farmers NOT to grow corn.

The vehicle even gets about 33 MPG highway .... and seats 6.

It is pretty amazing, when you think about it.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 09:54 PM
Knowing how gov't works, a national sales tax will likely be implemented without the repeal of any other taxes. We'll have an even greater burden.
Not an expert here, but I believe alcohol burns much hotter than gasoline, resulting in shortened engine life or added manufacturing costs.
I'm one who would like to see the unfettered and groundless Bush-bashing end (not just here, but everywhere). I felt the same way when Clinton was getting crucified for having a little sport on the side.
If I were President I would be overwhelmed by the honor to serve in that capacity. I believe that every President feels that way. Sure, sometimes it takes some dealing to get things done, but I believe that every President in my lifetime wanted what was best for his country.
So, to disagree with policy is understandable, but to just be hatin' - that is ugly. And it looks like post-Jerry Springer America is eating it up.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 10:00 PM
BigWill, other than shortened Engine life, GREAT post ... Seriously ... There literally is NO downside to the Flex Fuel engine. Well ... And the National sales tax as the bill sits in Congress DOES eliminate Fica and income Taxes ... www.fairtax.org is THE source for info, if anyone wants to check it out.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/16/05 11:19 PM
Any flex fuel hybrids on the horizon?

Gimme a flex fuel hybrid four door that doesn't look like sin, and has the standard performance of a midsize 4 cylinder, I'll all over it. (something like the honda civic hybrid, but runs on E85)


Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 04/17/05 04:22 AM
I'll be displaying my ignorance (and laziness) here, but these flex fuel engines are not designed to run on PURE ethanol, correct? They are still burning gas, right, with just a higher mixture of alcohol in the fuel? It was either in an environmental science class eons ago, or in the newspaper, that I read PURE alcohol burned in engines would require extensive engine mods. If so then y'all are just talking about forestalling the inevitable depletion of fossil fuels. Not that that is bad, but it doesn't actually solve the problem.
I don't see such radical change as the nat'l sales tax happening overnight. Congress is too chickensh!t to do anything that substantive. I can see a far more likely scenario of the sales tax being phased in and income taxes being phased out.
Unfortunately, I fear that in the inevitable temporary economic downturn, with federal tax revenue plummeting, they will decide they need to keep (or reinstate) the income tax, as well. In such a case (massive gov't shortfall) raising the sales tax would not be an option, as that would only further dampen recovery. Where's the cash gonna come from? Knowing gov't, any reserve will be spent and replaced with IOUs ala Social Security.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/17/05 05:07 AM
Ethanol fuel comes in a few forms.

From Ethanol.org

Also referred to as ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol, or ETOH, ethanol is a clear liquid with an agreeable odor. Ethanol is made by fermenting and distilling simple sugars. Today, ethanol is a fuel produced from crops such as corn, grain sorghum, wheat, sugar, and other agricultural feedstocks. Most fuel ethanol produced in the U.S. is derived from corn—latest figures indicate that just over 10% of the U.S. corn crop is dedicated to ethanol production. In Brazil, the world’s top producer of ethanol, sugar is the primary feedstock. Since it is produced from crops or plants that harness the power of the sun, ethanol is considered a renewable fuel.

Pure fuel ethanol contains chemical properties identical to that of other grain alcohol. As such, it must be denatured or made unfit for human consumption. In the U.S., the most common denaturant is gasoline. There are three major types of fuel ethanol:

E95 : Pure ethanol, or the alcohol produced in an ethanol production facility. E95 must be denatured so humans cannot consume it. While it can be used by some vehicles in its pure form, most E95 is currently blended with gasoline for resale in petroleum markets.

E85 : A mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, E85 is a leading alternative fuel used in the U.S. Over 3.5 million autos run on E85 fuel, and it can be purchased at approximately 200 refueling sites in the U.S. When E85 is not available, these “flexible” fuel vehicles can operate on any blend of ethanol or straight unleaded gasoline.

E10 : The most common from of ethanol, E10 contains 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Nearly 3 billion gallons of ethanol is consumed each year in the U.S., the vast majority of which is E10. All automobile manufacturers in the U.S. approve the use of E10.

Approximately 30% of all gasoline consumed in the United States was blended with ethanol in 2004. Because the ethanol molecule contains oxygen, it allows an auto engine to more completely combust fuel, resulting in fewer emissions. Fuel ethanol blends are successfully used in all types of vehicles and engines that require gasoline. Approval of ethanol blends is found in the owners' manuals under references to refueling or gasoline.


So yes, what's used in auto's is a blend, but E85 is a HUGE step towards weening ourselves off oil.


Posted By: bridgman Re: OT: politics - 04/17/05 05:42 AM
Personally I have my doubts about ethanol as our great hope for energy independence. It takes a lot of processing and a lot of energy to make ethanol from corn... but we can make BEER with less energy... hmmm.

The other problem is that if we want to fight greenhouse gases we need to be fixing carbon and absorbing carbon dioxide, not giving it off during processing :

"Co-Products. There are two main co-products created in the production of ethanol: distillers grain and carbon dioxide. Distillers grain, wet or dry, is a valuable livestock feed. Carbon dioxide is given off in great quantities during fermentation and many ethanol plants collect, compress, and sell it for use in other industries. "

http://www.ethanol.org/howethanol.html

The most promising approach I have seen is biodiesel... a mix of about 85% oil produced directly from an algae bed and 15% ethanol produced in the current way. The downside is that you need a diesel engine instead of a regular gasoline engine, but the upside is that MUCH less processing is required (no harvesting, no fermentation, no distillation) and at first glance the CO2 production seems to be much less.

The only way we're going to fix the CO2 levels is either to replant a few million square miles of forest (unlikely) or start pulling a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere back into fuel products. I think we're actually going to have to do both, which is going to be a real challenge unless we get our population growth under control.

Canada is still addicted to immigration for population growth and growing our way out of our accumulated debt... and I imagine the US is going to be thinking the same way after the deficits of the last few years. Trouble is that we have to keep chopping down forests and building on farmers fields in order to accomodate the ever-growing population, and we're not going to fix the carbon problem that way.

Our government's commitment to the Kyoto summit is a dangerous joke; regrettably very few up here seem to understand that. At least the US government had the intelligence not to sign the protocol without a viable plan to actually DO something about it.

IMO biodiesel is the solution.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/17/05 06:28 PM
In reply to:

You then said I was "more like Dubya than you are like me" and "which is why we have very opposite opinions." You were very clearly attempting to state that I must also have all those detriments you apply to our president



i been busy this weekend, no time to respond.

no craig, i was not "clearly attemping to state" anything... like i said, this is a translation problem. you are reading it differently than i am meaning it.. i wasnt trying to make any other degrading comparisons, like you think i am. i aint the type of guy to try and attack people, and i would hope that my history on this board would prove that.

i feel as though i have touched some kinda 'nerve' with you, by your statements about this not being the first time you have been accused to have "daddys money". honestly, since i didnt or wasnt trying to say this about you, i dont feel i need to respond.. but..... i think your interpretation of this whole conversation might be influenced by how quick your defenses came up about that subject. so, as far as i am concerned, its a done deal.. i will be more than happy to take responsibilty for whatever part i have played..

In reply to:

But ... If it is now your position that you meant nothing in the way of an attack on me, ok



you say this like i have changed my mind at some point? i was NEVER attacking you.. there is no ned to be defensive about this. as far as i am concerned, its over...

BTW- i paid $2.13 for regular unleaded yesterday.

bigjohn



Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/17/05 07:26 PM
Sure, BJ ... Whatever you say.
Posted By: BigWill Re: OT: politics - 04/17/05 07:29 PM
Thanks for the info spiff and bridgman. I had assumed it was all E10. Not sure about the carbon fixing forest stuff - that's new to me. Whne I was in college they were all talking about the O2 produstion lost by the loss of forests. Of course, now everybody knows that the little critters in the ocean produce 98% of the O2. Maybe they invented a new vital function for the trees?

Convincing America may not be too, too difficult, but what about the Chinese? Eventually they're gonna have to start paying their workers more that the $1-2 per day they're getting now. When they do, they'll be buying cars and burning gas like no tomorrow.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 04:39 AM
bigjohn,

I'm going to break ranks for a second and acknowledge that your comments comparing craigsub and the president were poorly worded and I can understand why craigsub is having a hard time believing you didn't mean what you typed in the way he's taking it. Because I've come to know and respect you as a person since you arrived on this forum, I sincerely believe that you didn't intend to demean craigsub. You've said as much, and the ball is fully in craigsub's court as to whether or not he chooses to believe your re-statement of intent.

craigsub,

By the tone of your responses, it is quite clear bigjohn offended you -- and you do have the right to feel so. However, in the interest of forum brotherhood, can you give him the benefit of the doubt? Look through his posting history. He really isn't the type to willfully offend other posters.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 11:38 AM
PM - I tend to always give people the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I see a different George w. Bush than does BigJohn. I also saw a different William Clinton than did the guys who would LOOK for a reason to despise HIM. One of the problems with this so called "discussion" from day one is most of the arguments made have either been how BigJohn posts about the president (a litany), or someone posting a link to some Far Left web site listing "facts" about Bush.

In 1999, The same discussion had far right guys posting links to "proof" that Ron Brown had bullet holes in the back of his head, Vince Foster was killed ... etc ... and that Bill Clinton was the same type of evil that Bush is painted as today.

I guess that fact that BOTH sides find my position that they both did or are doing a pretty good job to be "wrong" is an OK place to be.



Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 01:29 PM
thats very well said peter

thanks for trying to interpret here.. i have tried in my last 2 posts to apologize for offending craig, but still trying to let him know that it wasnt my intent to do so. i cant blame him any more or less than myslef for reacting, its just human nature. regardlass if i was trying to offend him or not(i wasnt), he still has the right to react.

craig- i truly wasnt trying to say you and dubya are the same guy. nor was i implying that you would have similar traits that i find unpleasant. like i said, it was bad wording on my part, and more of a translation problem.. but, once you got your defenses up, there was no convincing you otherwise. i take full responsibilty for the words that got you upset, but please try and see that they were not intended the way that you took them. i feel like there is now this dark cloud looming over this whole deal, and i would just like to clear it up and move on. i respect your views and opinions on this forum, and i would not want to feel responsible if our conversation made you not wanna come around here no more. that is not, or never was my intent.

i hope we can resolve without a bad taste in our mouths..
In reply to:

Sure, BJ ... Whatever you say



YES, i really did pay $2.13 a gallon

bigjohn
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 01:58 PM
Though reading this thread, I've avoided posting in it like the plague. And, though it causes me a great deal of pain, I do support, it's right to exist. I don't feel this is the right place for political discourse, but freedom of speech, and free expression, is worthy of support.

What is VERY difficult for me, in this current disagreement, is watching two people I "know," like, and respect, holler at each other. Based on my experience with both, It is my opinion that each is a decent, honorable, honest, worthwhile, loving family man, who wishes no ill to anyone.

Having watched BigJohn's postings for a year now, I do not believe, for a second, that his intent was to offend Craig. He has been one of the more "gentle," reasonable, considerate, friendly posters on the forum. He, now and then, can be outspoken, but I never thought his intent was to offend.

His error, if you wish to call it that, was letting his dislike for, and frustration with, President Bush bubble to the surface, something he has kept, other than one or two minor belches, very much under control. Being a Texan, and having the opportunity to observe the President closer than I, while I may, or may not, agree with him, I tend to believe his opinion, correct or not, is based on his observations, and not just some wild mindless bias.

In defense of Craig, though he is a relatively young man (OK! OK! Relative to ME, he's a young man) I think he has adopted a standard of behavior that I remember from my childhood, when it comes to the President Of The United States. Even if you don't respect the man, you respect the office, and you offer it's current occupant just that. Unfortunately, that value has gone galley west, along with humility, integrity, and consideration for others. It's only my opinion, but I get the feeling he was as offended by that as he was by any perceived insult to himself, and that, I suspect, fueled his resentment of what John said.

Funny thing is, Craig, I'm STILL getting viciously demeaning, insulting, emails attacking Bill Clinton, and, of course, Hillary. Good heavens! It's been 4 years since he's been in office. You'd think my politically conservative friends would've gotten over it by now. I think I have a number of these emails still in my "deleted email" folder. Can't be sure, because anytime I see the word "Clinton," I just delete the email without reading further. If anyone is interested, PM me your email address and I'll forward them to you, just to show you I'm not fibbing. They are NOT for forwarding.

Anyway, It is my sincere hope that, you two will find your way back to a friendly relationship, because, though different, you are both good men, and I consider you both "friends."

OK! Enough of being reasonable.

KNOCK IT OFF! YOU'RE BOTH PISSING ME OFF!




Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 02:19 PM
thanks jack.... i couldnt agree with you more..

bigjohn
Posted By: MarkSJohnson Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 02:58 PM
In reply to:

though he is a relatively young man (OK! OK! Relative to ME, he's a young man)




That's funny. You kinda said it like it meant something at first! He-He, he-he-he!
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 04:24 PM
Jack - I appreciate yours and the other guy's efforts at making peace here. And yes, while I do value AND respect the office of the presidency, my reaction had nothing to do with that. It is the consensus that BigJohn never meant to say I was a fool, nor that I was anything at all like George W. Bush. That is fine.

In my "relatively young" 44 years on earth, and 20 years as a business owner, I have learned some pretty consistent lessons. One of those lessons: People who are responsible for the well being of a large group of other people (business owners, priests, preachers, rabbis, school superintendents, etc ...) tend to develop a GREAT deal of respect for what someone in the position of president has to go through. It is a daunting job, and one which requires listening to thousands of advisors, with the knowledge that one's actions will positively or negatively affect millions.

Clinton was called a coward for "Using Iraq as cover for his Lewinsky affair" ... Bush was called a cowboy who "could not WAIT to send 1000's of people to their death".

In the meantime, both had or still have to try to try to defeat a terrorist enemy which has NO desire to co-exist, and CANNOT be reasoned with ... ALL while keeping "politically correct".

So, When I see someone ranting about ANY sitting president, I know deep down that the person ranting would likely last about 1 minute in the job ...


Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 05:17 PM
I understand what you say. And, I must agree that I don't believe his intent was to call you a fool. That may be what he did, but I don't believe it was intended.

It's just that I've seen you offer an olive branch to others, and express disappointment when it is refused. Regardless of his intent, I feel John has offered you an olive branch, and I'm just disappointed that you appear to be refusing it. That is your right. I'm not disappointed in either of you. I'm just disappointed by the situation, that's all.

After what we just went through at AVS and av123, this whole thing is a cakewalk. Some of you may remember that I made a post, not too long ago, referencing a miscreant that I found offensive. We've just had another run in with this guy, and I managed to salvage some of his posts before the thread was deleted. UNBELIEVABLE! First time I ever saw f***ing, with the correct letters, in an internet post. Of course, I may have led a sheltered internet life. If I posted them here, I'd be banned. But, if you're interested PM me, and I'll PM some of the juicy parts.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 05:33 PM
Jack - No Olive branch has been offered, nor asked for. BJ said it was not his intent to offend me, and I said that was OK ... The board here came to the consensus that he was not trying to offend me, and I said that was fine.

I really cannot say much more than that ... I am cool.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 06:11 PM
craig- i offer IT freely..

i to, am cool. and i to, would like to move on. i believe that is one thing we can definitely agree on..

bigjohn
Posted By: bigwill2 Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 06:30 PM
For all you big gov't lovers who poo-poo the notion that higher taxes slow the economy, have you noticed (again) the shot in the arm the economy receives after everyone gets their tax refunds?
My neighborhood is only 3 years old so we're all saddled with new loans and lots of interest payments, lots of kids, etc... It's been hilarious to see all the crap rolling in: speakers, bbqs, tvs, new cars, furniture, etc...
If only this stuff was "Made in the USA"!
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 06:52 PM
In reply to:

It's been hilarious to see all the crap rolling in



funny you should say that..

i got a new stove.
my sister got a new HT system.
my father-in-law got a new riding lawn mower.
one of my friends got a new fridge, one got a new wakeboard and wake-rack for his boat.. and the other got a new depth finder and trolling motor.

and i dont necesarily think that higher taxes slow the economy, they just delay it. instead of buying stuff thru the year, people just wait til they get their return.. i cant tell you how many times i have heard somebodysay, "i cant wait to get my return so i can go get.....(fill in the blank)". it all ends up levelling out if you average it by the year. right?

bigjohn

Posted By: bigwill2 Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 07:26 PM
I believe the point is: money in the hands of consumers equals increased economic activity.
View the country as a vehicle. The economy is the engine. Eveything else runs off of it. AFDC and other welfare programs would be like the air conditioning, taxes like power steering, Social Security like a big boat being towed, etc... All those things depend on a strong and healthy economy. Overburden your engine with too many ancillary devices and what results? Shrink your engine and what results? Strangle your engine with excessive regulatios and what results?
Of course, my analogy assumes we want to GET SOMEWHERE. I think a lot of folks would be happier sitting in the redwoods making leather sandals than seeing the human population thrive.

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 08:22 PM
bigwill, Harvard business school could use that analogy. Two thmbs up !
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 09:43 PM
I think people spending these refunds may be good for the economy, but is bad for the individual people. There are too many people in this country that have way too much debt, yet they continue to spend their money anyway instead of trying to pay off what they owe and budget properly.

I guess a lot of people use our govt. as their example for that though, which does the same thing with the deficit that we continue to have.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 09:47 PM
In reply to:

I think people spending these refunds may be good for the economy, but is bad for the individual people. There are too many people in this country that have way too much debt, yet they continue to spend their money anyway instead of trying to pay off what they owe and budget properly.

I guess a lot of people use our govt. as their example for that though, which does the same thing with the deficit that we continue to have.




Guilty as charged, but an excellent point. Paying off the national debt and making that a publicly known priority sets an excellent example for the people.

Why should we pay off our debt? The government doesn't? (not saying that proper thinking...just making a point)




Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 10:40 PM
Gents ... If we had never occured the current debt levels we have in this country, we would currently have an economy which is a fraction what it is today. The only thing preventing me from attempting to teach a small course in what good debt does is there would be people posting more links to some far left or far right no-nothing with all SORTS of data how debt is killing the country. Well, since I said that, perhaps it won't happen ... so here is a try ...

So ... I Will keep this REALLY simple ... in the past 25 years, overall debt in the US has increased by about 8 trillion dollars ... at the same time, our Assets have increased by about $20 trillion. Take out the $8 trillion in debt, and the $20 trillion goes with it. And we have the same 100 million employed people from 25 years ago and an unemployment rate of about 25%.

Using a micro view ... If a couple have a house which is worth $200,000 and have a mortgage of $50,000 ... ten years later they have moved ... and owe $300,000 on a house. This means their debtload has increased by a 500% ... Let's say the house is worth $800,000. Their gross value has gone up 300 % ...

This would be reported in (think about the above mentioned "nut-ball" web sites) as an untenable debt ....

I can see the headline "DEBTLOADS INCREASE BY 500% WHILE aSSETS INCREASE BY ONLY 300% - BANKRUPTCY IS IMMINENT !!"

Yet this couple's NET worth increased from $150,000 to $500,000.

Now ... Since we are having this discussion ... can we PLEASE stay on this, without any references to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or anyone else ? PLEASE ?
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 10:54 PM
can I sell some of my personal debt to the Chinese, too???

The average American owes about $8500 in credit card debt. If you distribute the national debt between the entire population of the USA, then each person is responsible for $26544. That's just over 3 times the personal credit card debt.

I'm not sure if this correlation means anything other than making debtors feel better.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 10:57 PM
craigsub, great analogies, and a fine request for making direct discussion of current or past presidents OFF LIMITS. I second the motion.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 11:08 PM
PM ... Thanks, and note I am smiling during the analogies ... ALSO ... The average person's NET assets today are about $150,000 ... twenty five years ago, the average net was about $50,000 ... While the debt load has increased from a total of $12,000 to about $48,000 total- a $36,000 increase ... the net increase in assets was about $100,000 ... or another $64,000 per person.

SO .... buy another pair of Axioms and feel good ...
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 11:15 PM
In reply to:

The average American owes about $8500 in credit card debt.


Well somebody out there has $17,000 in credit card debt, because I have zero. In fact, I have no debt whatsoever. Nada. Nil. Nothing. Zip! Does that mean I'm hurting the country?

Of course my lack of debt is offset by the fact that I have no assets either! Nada. Nil. Nothing. Zip! Unless you count a couple of sound systems.
Posted By: bridgman Re: OT: politics - 04/18/05 11:46 PM
>>Well somebody out there has $17,000 in credit card debt, because I have zero.

I found it highly amusing that to a credit card company, people who pay the full amount every month are called "deadbeats" because the CC company doesn't make any interest $$ off you, just the percentage they shave off the stores you shop at.
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 03:31 AM
My only debt is the balance of my student loans. We paid everything else off and are slowly saving for a home downpayment to slightly offset the principle on our next major loan. California is not likely to see any of that money, though. This state's real estate is too rich for me.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 04:04 AM
peter- my family is on the same sheet of music as you and ajax. we have very few credit cards, just enough to do what we need with them. and we always request for our limit to be left the same, everytime they offer to raise them.. that way, when we ever do apply for loans, they cant count the top limit as total debt accured. plus, we pay off our balance every month, so we get no roll over finances charges. we do fall behind a bit around the holidays, but always get caught back up by feb or march.

aside from our normal regular bills(water, cable, phone, etc), the only reoccuring bill we have is the mortgage, her truck payment, and her student loans. thats it. i usually save up and pay cash for all large items, and i live by the motto, "if i dont have cash for it, i dont need it!!" . of course, you have to bend that rule a little when getting a home or car.

bigjohn


Posted By: MarkSJohnson Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 10:47 AM
You guys are lucky. If my debt had to be described with one word, it would be "crushing".

This little Axiom/HT "fling" I've had recently is the only luxury we've had for about ten years (the last time we took a vacation). We spend $15k - $25k most years on equipment upgrades, all of it cash. When we started the business 15 years ago, no bank would fund the capital for a photography studio, despite a good business plan and sales forecasts. Bankers look at photography (and now video production) as a business that many hobbyists like to "play around in", so they're not looked at too favorably by bankers. All of those initial expenditures to grow into video production as well as expand the photography end of the business were done with credit cards.

Although that initial wave of credit was paid off, the second, third, fourth, etc… were done the same way. Here I am, 15 years later and still paying off debt. I work 12~16 hours a day, seven days a week. I work on New Year's, my Birthday, and, (till this past year) work on Christmas day. As mentioned, we don't vacation and I haven't had time to watch a movie on my HT in four weeks. Joyce and I have been married 16 years, and still don't feel confident enough in our finances or schedules to have kids.

I'm not an economist. I can't speak as to how "National debt" has enabled the country to grow. I can say that I've built a reputation in my business and equity in a building in a growing, "professional" side of town. Believe it or not, I'm not complaining, as I'm working in the field I chose.

But…..

Politics aside, National/Global economy aside, I can tell you that from where I stand:

Debt sucks.

Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 12:30 PM
Speaking of Credit, I know this has been commonly reported, but I thought I would mention it, in the off chance that someone may have missed it.

Those of you in the West and Midwest parts of the US are now entitled to one credit report per year, FREE OF CHARGE, from each of the 3 credit reporting companies. They will be available to those in the South and the East on June 1, and September 1, respectively.

AnnualCreditReport.com (The FAQ at this site will answer a LOT of your questions.)

I recommend you pay the extra 6.95 at Equifax to get your "Credit Score," which is not included in your "credit report." Spread the reports out over the year, and you can check your credit every 4 months. A good thing to do.

It's free, now, for many of us, and soon will be for the rest. Ya got no excuse any more.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 01:03 PM
Mark - Just think where your business would be without the debt ... if I read your narrative correctly, your business would still be an idea, true ?

Yes, Paying debt OFF is a good idea, but, again, without people taking some risk and going into debt, we are in a depression.
Posted By: Zarak Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 03:53 PM
I'm close to where you are BigJohn. Never carried a balance on a credit card, won't buy things unless I have cash for them, the only outstanding non regular bill payment monthly is the house. I might borrow for cars, but if I do I pay it off within a year. My wife still has car and student loan payments, but all of her income goes to that right now while mine handles everything else.

The one thing I know I would not handle well is not feeling like I am in control of my finances and that I had lots of debt. I don't need much, or buy a lot of things, but for the most part when there is something I want I want to be able to buy it without worrying about how am I going to pay for it.

This is probably why I feel our Govt. should do the same.

Craig, are there any numbers out there you know of over recent years that compare out deficit increase vs. our net worth increase per year?
Posted By: bigwill2 Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 06:23 PM
"... without people taking some risk and going into debt, we are in a depression."

If only I had some testes, I would have kept the old house when buying the new one. I was afraid the real estate market would burst its bubble (LOL, both house have doubled in value in the 3 years since) and leave me upside down in two houses. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I don't begrudge anything to those who roll the dice and win. I do think bankruptcy laws are too kind to debtors, though.
As a teacher I have the enjoyable experience (over and over again) of witnessing the disbelief on kids' faces when they learn about the bizarre things we adults have come to accept as "right".

Regarding bankruptcy laws, "You mean you can just go out and buy a bunch of stuff, declare bankruptcy and then you don't ever have to pay the money back?"
Regarding abortion, especially partial birth abortions, "They do that?!!!!"
Regarding alcoholics and drug addicts who collect Social Security due to their "disabilities", "Huh? What? No way!"
Affirmative action, estate taxes, and a bunch of other stuff that I can't think of right now.

I guess you have to go to college or read the Times to learn why all this stuff is actually OK.

Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 07:28 PM
i just saw a deal on CNN a few days ago, where they are gonna try and pass new laws to toughen up the bankruptcy process. i guess someone finally figured it was just getting too easy to sign a piece of paper, and be free from debts. i have always thought it was a sham. i am sure it was intended to be used in good faith, and as a last resort.. but, it is clear that the system has been taken advantage of in the past decade or so.

in casual conversation over tha past few months.. i have discovered several people i know, about my same age, that have already filed bankruptcy..... i couldnt believe it. and they ALL acted like it was just no big deal.. got to keep their cars, credit cards wiped clean. now, they cant get any credit for the next 7 years.. but after that, its like a new start. so, somewhere in their mid to late 30's, they get to do it all over again. where is the fairness in that for the rest of us who actually PAY our bills.??

bigjohn
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 07:41 PM
I hear ya. I've known two people who filed. I'm in debt up to my butt, but I'm paying it off.

Back to the US and debt. My issue isn't with debt so much as it's with the budget deficit. Debt isn't the issue so much as spending money faster than we make it. (Though the debt burden we carry comes with MASSIVE interest...which is directly related to the deficit.)

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 08:27 PM
BW2 ... You get a lot of "yep, that is about right" on your posts ... The hard part about getting accurate data from, say 2003 - 2004 is finding numbers from a credible source ... remember, BAD news sells ... so finding negative stuff is easy. Finding ACCURATE stuff is hard.

BJ ... My bride is an attorney, and she loathes bankrutpcy pieces of shi ... oops, I mean attorneys ... and yes, the laws look like they will FINALLY get tougher ... because EVERYTIME someone files BK ... WE pay for it.

The amazing thing is some in Congress think the problem lies with credit card companies making it too easy for people to go into debt ... A FREE society brings personal responsibility ... and to blame the credit card company is just plain .... wrong.
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 08:38 PM
I'm glad to see the bankruptcy laws tightened up, but lets not take all the onus off the credit card companies. I spend a lot of time at the University of Minnesota and during the first week of classes the credit card shills line the student union. Getting a credit card is a personal decision, but throwing unsecured cards at 18 year olds isn't right. Testosterone, alcohol, and credit cards aren't a good mix for kids and I've rented our rental property to a couple of kids who have proven it.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 08:40 PM
Jorge ... If someone is not intelligent to handle a credit card, is that person responsible enough to vote in a Presidential election?
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 08:53 PM
craig and jorge- y'all both bring up interesting points.. i think the REAL point here is, age is not a sign of intelligence. regardles of them being 18 or 35, their ability to grasp the concept of credit, debt, and responsibilty is whats at question.

i tend to see it both ways.. i dont thinjk its all togehter right for the CC companies to hand out cards to starving college studenst at 25% interest. but, i also think if the student decided to take it and abuse it, he should take his lumps and learn his lessons. aint that what college is all about in the first place? learning?

so, i guess i kinda agree with both of y'all. i got burned on a college CC. took me 4 years to pay off $700 bucks. but, it taught me a valuable lesson. the question is, who else is intelligent enough to learn these lessons. and whos responsibilty is it to decifer who can and cant handle the responsibility?

bigjohn
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 08:54 PM
Craig, his voting decision potentially affects him a great deal less on a personal level than running up a line of credit that he can't afford. It seems to me that a lot of parents do an awful job of teaching basic financial principles to their kids. Do you think that the typical 18 year old kid has any idea in his head of what a bad credit history means and what the ramifications are when he may want to get a mortgage when he's 25.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 09:11 PM
So - this means your answer is yes. You think an 18 year old who is not intelligent to look at a credit card IS intelligent enough to vote.

Yes, It is possible SOME Parents do an awful job educating children on $$$$ ...

But ... are you going to say a kid does NOT know he has to pay the $$$$ back ?
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 09:19 PM
And your point is? If a kid is paying 25% interest to Mastercard-that's money he could be either paying me in rent or even buying something from my company. Do you really think a kid with no credit history should be allowed to get an unsecured card? When does the practice of giving students cards become a form of predatory lending. Of course anyone who applies for a card should know he must pay it back.
Posted By: JaimeG Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 09:33 PM
I haven't really paid much attention to bankruptcy laws to make a decision on whether they are too lax or strict. But your posts had opened my eyes, man, is it really that simple? Only 7 years and after that a clean slate? Geez ...where's my credit card, im gonna order me a pair of EP600... 7 year w/o credit?, heck,it's worth it.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 09:48 PM
My point is fairly simple ... This individual is either an adult, or is not. But, let's take a look at this another way. Do you think it should be illegal for a credit card company to offer a card to someone 18 years old ?
Posted By: PaulM Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 10:02 PM
I agree we have to be responsible for our own actions and poor use of credit cards. But what frosts my butt about credit card companies is they have no mercy when someone does get into a pickle financially and goes way beyond their means. It is awful rare a CC company when notified about a situation where someone has gotten into a situation where they can't even afford to keep up with the interest that is accumulating, will agree to stop the interest onslaught and give the persona fighting chance to dig themselves out from the ever deepening hole (never understood that phrase).

Case in point: I have a 40 year old sister with bi-polar disorder and we (my family) do our best to keep her and credit cards away from one another. But with the constant stream of pre-approved CC applications coming in the mail and when my sister is in one of her "bad periods", a couple times she has managed to get a credit card issued to her. And this is with an outrageously bad credit rating to boot. Anyway, each time she gets her hands on one sooner or later she ends up buying with schizophrenic abandon till we eventually notice she is showing up frequently with new clothes and the like and get her to admit she has a card and lets us cut it up. Of course that is a couple thousand dolars later. Twice now I've appealed to CC companies to make a deal with them that I'll agree to pay down the her debt over the next year or so if they will just stop the interest accumulation.

Twice they brushed me off with, so sad, too bad. I point out she has a mental disorder, a poor credit rating which calls into question how the CC company could have approved her in the first place and the financial burden isn't helping her mental health any (or me for that matter). That and she may decide to declare bankrupcy cause she doesn't have a nickel to her name and no job, so not much to loose compared to them. Do they care. No, they couldn't give a tinkers damn.

I don't really like what seems like our societies ever increasing marginalization of the disadvantaged in the face of increasing wealth, but I REALLY HATE when given an opportunity to improve a situation that big business had a part in creating, a company would rather squish ya like the bug they obviously think you are. CC companies all too often have a bad rep. and seem to fall into this camp.

Ok, I best sign off and settle down before I go home to my wife and kids - Paul


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 10:08 PM
Paul, I really understand your frustration in your individual case. The hard part is, for the person on the other end: For every person telling a true story, there are at least 100 lying about some made up family crisis.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the people ejudicating your sister's case would need to be psychic. And a REALLY good one, too.

As for college credit cards, Citibank charges 15.74% after 6 months of zero interest ... with a 25 day free grace period each month. And yes, I was curious enough to look it up on their site .. this was their college student credit card.
Posted By: PaulM Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 10:20 PM
________________________________________________

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the people ejudicating your sister's case would need to be psychic. And a REALLY good one, too.
___________________________________________________

I realize this and don't take offence. In realizing this I was prepared to do my best demonstrate to them I wasn't just trying to pull a fast one (e.g. get letter from long-time phychiatrist stating the situation or whatever the comapny felt they needed to be confident I wasn't pulling a scam) but they weren't even interested. Next time I won't be so interested in bailing out what really amounted to the profit of the CC company. A default on any future CC account my sister may have would make no difference to her financial situation. She has no assets or cash.

Sadly such things just add to the growing sinicism of society, me included.

Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 10:35 PM
Credit cards have always been a true "You better know what you are doing" form of money exchange. The companies literally know what the default rate will be (we will call it X%), and take a view that it is less expensive to write off X% than to spend the necessary man-hours to collect the percentage of x% they could actually get (collect) by trying to work through the situation you (well, your sister) are in.

Posted By: PaulM Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 10:50 PM
______________________________________

Credit cards have always been a true "You better know what you are doing" form of money exchange. The companies literally know what the default rate will be (we will call it X%), and take a view that it is less expensive to write off X% than to spend the necessary man-hours to collect the percentage of x% they could actually get (collect) by trying to work through the situation you (well, your sister) are in.
_____________________________________

And at times they are completely without conscience about who they will give a card to. Even someone who has an abysmal credit rating and a proven track record of not using one responsibly. For this and the previous stated reasons, I can't feel anything but that they reap what they sow when they are maligned in the press and government occasionally steps in (at least in Canada) to moderate their practices upon the consumer.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 10:55 PM
Paul ... This gets back to what I tried to ask earlier. At what specific point should it be illegal for a bank to issue a credit card ?
Posted By: jorge016 Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 11:13 PM
Craig, needs not be illegal to issue cards to college students. How about debt ceilings or secured accounts until a good credit history is established? Who would lose by restrictions? Did you have a credit card when you were in college? In my day it was cash or check-we survived quite nicely and came out of college owing student loans at reasonable rates instead of 17% or higher for credit card accounts.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 11:16 PM
jorge ... Who would then set this ceiling ? What should the ceiling be ?

It would still require some form of regulation. As a disclaimer, I did not have a credit card until I was 26, and paid my own way through college.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 11:22 PM
Some ideas for legislation:

1. A do not solicate list (similar to the do not call list for telemarketers) based on one's social security #.
2. Require ALL credit card solicitations to have the potential card holder's SS# attached to the offer.
3. If I think of anything else, I will bore you some more ...
Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 11:35 PM
WHAT??? Put SSNs on credit card offers? That's just begging for an identity theft outbreak.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/19/05 11:39 PM
PM ... if you want to see Banks go nuts ... tell them THEY have to GET the SS#'s in order to do the solicitation ... think it through.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 12:08 AM
With the crackdown on bankrupcy (which I tend to agree with) CC companies are going to be giving credit to anyone who'll take it. Mr. Bear will likely start getting offers in the mail. Their predatory ways are going to get completely out of control. If we're going to pass legislation that stiffles bankrupcy filings, some has to be equally done to reign in the cc companies as well. Fair is fair, no?


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 12:14 AM
Spiff ... Maybe I am not getting my point across here. SO ... here goes again, so far, we have had complaints. When I decide to complain about something, I think it is incumbent on me to have SOME ideas regarding a solution ...

I have offered two ideas ... Come on people ... quit bitching unless you are going to add some solid ideas !

IF there was a "do not solicate" site in which people could list one's SS#, and become "off limits" to the CC companies ... it would have a HUGE impact.

And PM ... Even as the owner of a car dealership, I can go into our computer and grab pretty much anyone's SS# ... The identify theft of SS#'s is pretty much a non issue.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 12:23 AM
OK...fine.

1) No credit history = no unsecured credit
2) POOR credit = cap on credit limit (based on income)
3) HORRIBLE credit = no unsecured credit
4) 18 - 21 years old with credit history = cap on credit limit (based on income)
5) interest rates - I don't have enough details to know what these should be capped at, but I DO know that if bankrupcies are going to be curbed, so should/can the interest rates being charged.

Better?


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 12:32 AM
Better ... NOW ... Take those criteria and make them work with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the new privacy acts over the past few years. The bank has to PROVE why someone was denied credit. For example, a young black man gets a full scholarship to play basketball at Michigan. He comes from a poor home, and is a GREAT kid. HE gets a part time job, and wants a credit card. HE now gets denied. Bank gets Jesse Jackson doing a press conference.

BTW ... When I said no bitching without solutions, you were supposed to chuckle. this site needs more smilies.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 12:45 AM
Being my usual pain in the a$$ self, I did some more research .. that $8500 for every person sounded high ... the average adult has a bit over $2000 in credit card debt.

A company called www.usdebtservice.com has stats broken down by age and geography ... They are a for profit company which will help someone with excess credit card debt.

I am using their figures, because they would be inclined, if anything, to OVERSTATE credit card debt levels, as there would be profit for them in doing so.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 01:07 AM
Under my criteria he wouldn't be denied. He'd have a secured card until he built some sort of credit history.

If the credit card company wants to turn Mr. Jackson's press conference against him they could say that it would be irresponsible of them to offer credit to a young, impressionable man with no prior credit history. They'd in fact be doing him a favor by only offering a secured card.

The fact that he comes from a poor family has no bearing on the issue at all. The fact that he's black has no bearing whatsoever. The fact that he's a good kid is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the fact that he's only 18 years old, and has no prior credit history.




Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 01:18 AM
Perhaps I was not specific enough ... as he was poor, he had nothing with which to secure the card. Assuming he was making $6 per hour ... if he wanted a $500 limit, and was working 12 hours per week, he would need 7 weeks to save enough for this card. If he has $500 in the bank to secure the $500 credit card, it now becomes a debit card.

And, speaking as someone who has spent thousands of $$$$ in getting "up to speed" in the new compliance laws, you may rest assured race is a MAJOR part of this.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 01:23 AM
By the way, I am not opposed to outlawing credit cards for ANYONE under 18 years old.
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 01:45 AM
Absolutely. I didn't even realize it was currently legal for someone under 18 to have one now!

...and yes, if he has no savings, and no credit history, then he needs a secured credit card...or (appending my own rules, I realize) a VERY low limit. $200-500 MAX.

Am I going to come up with the plan to solve this issue, no...but clearly there are things that can be done. Within 5 minutes I came up with several ideas. All of which are in the broad sense, feasible.


Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 01:49 AM
Spiff ... Feasible ? Unfortunately, no. In today's world, an 18 year old is an adult. What you proposed is illegal. I realize that is hard to believe, but it is true.

EDIT .... Spiff, The hard to believe part was not a shot at you nor your ideas ... The Privacy acts make things REALLY hard to follow with logic.
Posted By: PaulM Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 04:40 AM
__________________________________

And, speaking as someone who has spent thousands of $$$$ in getting "up to speed" in the new compliance laws, you may rest assured race is a MAJOR part of this.
__________________________________________

Since when did CC applications ask for your race? In canada that is illegal. Don't privacy laws in the US also protect against this kind of practice?
Posted By: spiffnme Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 05:04 AM
What did I propose that is illegal?

And no, credit card aps do NOT ask for race.


Posted By: pmbuko Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 05:15 AM
No they don't, but I'd say the chances are pretty high that there exists somethere a database that ties SSNs to race.
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 11:18 AM
I never said credit card applications ask about race. They don't. And, PM, I don't "think" there are SS#'s that could be somehow traced by race.

Where the legality comes in is this: In the new compliance laws, proof of "being legal" now falls on the Vendor. This could be a loan officer at a bank, at a car dealership, at a mortgage broker, a credit card company, or even a stock broker.

With the new compliance laws ... Spiff, Let's pretend you are a loan officer at a bank. You look at two applicants for a loan. One is white, and one is Green. You approve the White applicant and deny the Green applicant. IF the Green applicant now goes to the FCC and lodges a complaint on you, he no longer has to prove you DID discriminate. YOU have to prove you didn't. Proving this can be REALLY costly.

These laws are about 12 years old now, and when they passed, the penalties in them were set to become tougher over time. Spin forward from 1993 to 2005, and what has happened ?

One of the easiest ways to prove your total non-discrimination in the credit card world ... approve any adult.

And guys, just LET a credit card company announce that they will no longer give cards to people below a certain credit score, and WATCH the lawsuits flow in. IF it turned out, in this instance more Green people per 100,000 were below that arbritary Credit score than were White people, The leaders of the Green coalition would be on CNN airing a press conference.

And just LET a congressman propose legislation stating NOONE with a Credit score below, say, 600 can get a new card. He would be lynched in the press.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 02:21 PM
In reply to:

Since when did CC applications ask for your race?



you mean people actually fill out applications for CC these days? i thought they just sent the CC to you every 2-3 months, and you just have to call them back and say, "no thank you."

in fact, funny we are talking about this. last week, i got a set of cards sent to the house last week, and the paper inside said that these 'new' ones were to replace my 'old' ones that have expired.. and i needed to call a number to activate them.. as i looked at the cards, i realized, i dont even HAVE these cards, so how could they be sending me replacements for cards that i dont even have. so i call the CC company, and ask then the deal.. they said i have an 'open' account that hasent had a charge on it in over 2 years. i said "yea, cause i shouldnt have an account with you". long story short, there computer showed i had an account with a $5K limit, and i had NO idea what-so-ever that we even had the account. and when i acquired as to why i havnt received any sort of monthly notice about the account, they said bills and invoices are only generated when there is activitly on the account, and since it hasnt been used in 2 years, i had no idea it was even there..

i ended up telling them just to cancel the account, and remove me from their customer list. i got a call 2 days later from the "head of financing" department(yea right), he apologized for the 'problems' we had with the account, and offered me ANOTHER CC with a lower interest rate, and higher limit.. are you KIDDING ME!!!!! NO MEANS NO.... leave me the hell alone..

i just had to laugh over the whole situation.

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 04:05 PM
Another lesson : Always cancel credit cards in writing. Keep a copy. It is NOT legal for a company to issue you a card without your signature somewhere. Same thing with cancelling the card.

If you own a home, take out a credit card as a line of equity ... The interest is usually prime or prime + 1% ... and you can KILL the remaining cards. In fact, when you fill out the application, the person at the home Equity company will usually help you locate cards AND cancel them ... EVEN the ones you did not know you had.
Posted By: Ajax Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 04:45 PM
Just in case you guys weren't aware of it, though Craig has his finger in a number of businesses, the one that carries his name is Chase Financial Services. I don't know exactly what CFS does, but I have it on good authority that Craig is an adviser on compliance issues to finance institutions. So when it comes to credit, theoretically anyway () he knows whereof he speaketh.
Posted By: bigjohn Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 04:48 PM
thanks for the advice.. it kinda scared me later to think that i had an 'open' account just sitting out there with a $5K limit, that i wasnt even aware of. i dont remember signing up for or requesting any sort of account from this company. i dont think there is anything 'fishy' or any craftiness going on, but i still dont like the fact i had no idea the account existed.

maybe i should go ahead and bust it out with a new SVS or HSU purchase.... NOT!!!

bigjohn
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 05:47 PM
You are welcome ... and one thing about doing finance, it is kinda like asking an IRS worker the "rules" ... one would THINK the rules would be consistent. They are as consistent as speaker preferences...
Posted By: snakeyes Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 09:39 PM
craig arent the "experts" now advising it is bad for your credit rating to close credit card accounts?
also a spending limit or what ever based on age would be agism (spelling?)and it is naive to think that the race card wont be played by someone based on thier denial. thats what they are going through in the NBA right now the age limitation that most people clamor for gets spun into a race issue as well.
Jake
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/20/05 09:43 PM
It the short run, it can be ... but only because the geniuses that devised the scoring system made it so ANY activity lowers your credit score. For example, each INQUIRY on your account lowers the score.

However, by closing ALL your cards except for perhaps one or two, within a year, your score will be higher ...
Posted By: snakeyes Re: OT: politics - 04/21/05 12:49 AM
bush signs the bankruptcy bill
Posted By: craigsub Re: OT: politics - 04/21/05 01:07 AM
Yep ... It actually passed the house by 306 to 108, and the Senate by 83 to 15 ... A veto-proof bill.
Posted By: bridgman Re: OT: politics - 04/21/05 02:20 AM
>>maybe i should go ahead and bust it out with a new SVS or HSU purchase....

It's not too hard to get your dog a couple of MNBA Mastercards. Let the dog buy the luxuries.

"I don't know what happened... I leave him at home all day, I have to work you know".

Let them try to find a law that says you are responsible for your dog's financial liabilities
Posted By: PaulM Re: OT: politics - 04/21/05 06:12 AM
Don't you have two dogs with shifty looking eyes? Could get you in double the trouble.
Posted By: AshBoomstick Re: OT: politics - 04/21/05 08:18 AM
so long as they don't look like Mark's Dr. Moreau-ish dog i think he'll be ok!
© Axiom Message Boards